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=468462





--- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert <fed...@christoph-wickert.de>  2009-01-03 
20:15:28 EDT ---
REVIEW FOR 9050675dce622f3983571eb094ca60ec  sbackup-0.10.5-3.fc10.src.rpm


OK - MUST: ]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/sbackup-0.10.5-3.fc11.*
sbackup.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 76)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
can be ignored, see comment # 4.
OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
FIX - MUST: The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines.
- Timestamp of Source0 does not match
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2+) and
meets the Licensing Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by
MD5 0d754b72da3b5cadf6de203cdf7afe13
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
i386
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro.
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes
a %defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK - MUST: The package contains code.
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
FIX - MUST: The Package contains a GUI application and includes a
%{name}.desktop file that is properly installed with desktop-file-install in
the %install section, but there are some issues with the desktop files, see
below.
OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described.
OK - SHOULD: The scriptlets used are must be sane.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg.
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.


Issues:
- Timestamp of Source0 does not match, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps

- Desktop files:
  - paths are hardcoded
  - key "Categories" is a list and does not have a semicolon as trailing
character
  - Categories are IMO not correct. Suggestion:
     sbackup-restore = System;Utility;Filesystem;Archiving;GNOME;GTK;
     sbackup-conf =  System;Settings;SystemSettings;GNOME;GTK;
     In case of doubt see
     http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html
  - add GenericNames for KDE compatibility. Use the window title
    Restore files/directories, Backup Properties
  - please add (at least German) Translations for the keys, e. g.
    GenericName[de]=Dateien/Verzeichnisse wiederherstellen


- Requires:       usermode-gtk for the password dialog

- Use global pam config?
    #%PAM-1.0
    auth            include         config-util
    account         include         config-util
    session         include         config-util

- I suggest you include pam config as separate sources instead of creating them
on the fly.

- include an initscript for sbackupd?
- What are the Exclude statements for?

-- 
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.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to