Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freehoo - Freehoo is a free console based messenger for Yahoo IM Service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433926 ------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx 2008-06-22 08:46 EST ------- MUST Items: OK - rpmlint is clean OK - follows Naming Guidelines OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines + According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires there is no need to mention Requires: guile readline glib2. RPM automagically picks them up: [rishi@ginger x86_64]$ rpm --requires -qp freehoo-3.5.2-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm [...] libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libguile.so.17()(64bit) [...] libreadline.so.5()(64bit) + Requires: words is needed because freehoo uses /usr/share/dict/words. + freehoo.1 is now UTF-8 and conversion is not needed anymore. + Why is C_INCLUDE_PATH needed? It looks like the configure takes care of it: AC_SUBST(YAHOO2_CFLAGS) AC_SUBST(YAHOO2_LIBS) + Does 'make test' really work? I am getting: [rishi@ginger src]$ make test make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. [rishi@ginger src]$ + Is '%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}/examples' really needed? Looks like %{buildroot}/examples is not created. + The following two lines are not needed: %{__rm} -f %{buildroot}/usr/doc/%{name}/autogen.sh %{__cp} -av %{buildroot}/usr/doc/%{name}/* %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ Just remove %{buildroot}/usr/doc because %doc copies the files anyway. + According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation the INSTALL file should not be carried. OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines xx - License field meets actual license + Should be GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses OK - upstream license file included in %doc OK - spec file uses American English OK - spec file is legible OK - sources match upstream sources OK - package builds successfully OK - ExcludeArch not needed OK - build dependencies correctly listed + You could consider listing each dependency on a separate line. OK - no locales OK - no shared libraries OK - package is not relocatable OK - file and directory ownership OK - no duplicates in %file OK - file permissions set properly + The preferred attribute definition is: %defattr(-,root,root,-) OK - %clean present xx - macros not used consistently + Use %{_infodir} instead of %{_datadir}/info. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros + Try not to mix freehoo and %{name} in the Spec. eg., %files. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros OK - contains code and permissable content OK - -doc is not needed OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime OK - no header files OK - no static libraries OK - no pkgconfig files OK - no library files OK - -devel is not needed OK - no libtool archives OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages OK - buildroot correctly prepped OK - all file names valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - upstream provides license text xx - no translations for description and summary OK - package builds in mock successfully OK - package builds on all supported architectures OK - package functions as expected OK - scriptlets are sane OK - subpackages are not needed OK - no pkgconfig files OK - no file dependencies outside /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review