Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771462 --- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-01 22:47:15 EST --- Review: + OK - NA ? ISSUE + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License ? License field in spec matches ^^ Wouldn't GPLv2+ be more appropriate than GPLv3 as per the following license check output? aclocal.m4: GENERATED FILE AUTHORS: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ChangeLog: *No copyright* UNKNOWN config.guess: GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE config.sub: GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE configure: GENERATED FILE configure.in: *No copyright* UNKNOWN COPYING: UNKNOWN depcomp: GPL GENERATED FILE INSTALL: *No copyright* UNKNOWN install-sh: MIT/X11 (BSD like) ltmain.sh: GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE main.cpp: GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) GENERATED FILE Makefile.am: *No copyright* UNKNOWN Makefile.in: GENERATED FILE missing: GPL GENERATED FILE NEWS: *No copyright* UNKNOWN notewindow.cpp: GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) README: *No copyright* UNKNOWN wnote.1: UNKNOWN ? License file included in package File included is GPLv3. Think this is OK, since the License is 2+. + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. + Sources match upstream md5sum: [ankur@ankur SPECS]$ spectool -g wnotes.spec Getting http://wnotes.googlecode.com/files/wnotes-1.2.tar.gz to ./wnotes-1.2.tar.gz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 319k 100 319k 0 0 294k 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 350k [ankur@ankur SPECS]$ md5sum wnotes-1.2.tar.gz ../SOURCES/wnotes-1.2.tar.gz 705276ae654b71987e84ada72b6caad7 wnotes-1.2.tar.gz 705276ae654b71987e84ada72b6caad7 ../SOURCES/wnotes-1.2.tar.gz [ankur@ankur SPECS]$ - Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. + Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. ? Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file ^^ This is a GUI, right? + Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + Package owns all the directories it creates. + No rpmlint output. [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ !rpmlint rpmlint ../SPECS/wnotes.spec wnotes-1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/wnotes-*.rpm wnotes-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wnotes-1.2/main.cpp wnotes-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wnotes-1.2/notewindow.cpp 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ + final provides and requires are sane: == wnotes-1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm == Provides: Requires: libX11-devel libXpm-devel == wnotes-1.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm == Provides: wnotes = 1.2-1.fc16 wnotes(x86-64) = 1.2-1.fc16 Requires: libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXpm.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) == wnotes-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm == Provides: wnotes-debuginfo = 1.2-1.fc16 wnotes-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.2-1.fc16 Requires: SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. + Should build on all supported archs ? Should function as described. ^^ I installed and tried to run it. It fails with the following error: [ankur@ankur result]$ wnote X Error of failed request: BadName (named color or font does not exist) Major opcode of failed request: 45 (X_OpenFont) Serial number of failed request: 23 Current serial number in output stream: 24 [ankur@ankur result]$ You will need to see why this is happening and correct the package. Unfortunately, this is a BLOCKER. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. Please see why it fails to run. 2. Please check the License, I feel GPLv2+ is more apt than 3. 3. A desktop file needs to be included if this is a GUI app. Thanks, Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review