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: Quassel - Distributed IRC Client and Core application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452714 cra@xxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cra@xxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From cra@xxxxxxx 2008-06-24 18:43 EST ------- Partial review: rpmlint output: >rpmlint quassel-0.2.0-1.fc9.src.rpm quassel.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 7) [This is fine] quassel.src: E: description-line-too-long Quassel IRC is a modern, distributed IRC client, meaning that one (or multiple) client(s) can attach to and detach from a central core -- quassel.src: E: description-line-too-long much like the popular combination of screen and a text-based IRC client such as WeeChat, but graphical [Please wrap the text into a paragraph of no more than 80-characters per line] quassel.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog [Please include version after each changelog header line like this: * Sat Jun 23 2008 Steven Parrish <smparrish[at]shallowcreek.net> 0.2.0-0.1.beta1 ] quassel.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2 GPLv3 [correct syntax is "or" between each license: License: GPLv2 or GPLv3 ] quassel.src: W: strange-permission quasselclient.desktop 0777 quassel.src: W: strange-permission quasselcore.desktop 0777 quassel.src: W: strange-permission quassel.desktop 0777 quassel.src: W: strange-permission quassel.spec 0777 [Since these desktop files originated as included Source: the easiest way to fix these is to chmod 644 *.desktop before you build] Packaging Review MUST Items: + for items that pass review - for required changes ? for suggestions or needs investigation + package name matches upstream - version/release doesn't follow guidelines for beta/pre-release versions: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages I suggest using: Version: 0.2.0 Release: 0.1.beta1%{?dist} + spec file name matches package name - License is good: dual GPLv2 / GPLv3, but as stated above, License tag needs to use correct syntax for dual-license scenario: License: GPLv2 or GPLv3 - Need to include gpl-v2.txt, gpl-v3.txt, and COPYING in the package as %doc + spec is in American English ? suggest blank line before %clean and between other sections for readability + Source0: URL download sha1sum matches src in package: 36fe1f1352f79f77d824d076add4e9e24c49ba75 quassel-0.2.0-beta1.tar.bz2 + Package built successfully in koji, BuildRequires apparently fine ? Why are you manually installing only a few files rather than using "make install"? + owns all directories it creates + no duplicate %files + permissions look good on installed files + has a proper %clean section - please use %{_datadir} macro in place of /usr/share + package contains code suitable for Fedora packaging - no documentation - consider including README and any other documentation (not INSTALL build instructions though) ? For your core and client subpackages: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + Desktop files are present and installed with desktop-file-install + no shared directory ownerships + rm -rf %{buildroot} at beginning of %install -- 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