[Bug 213600] Review Request: tinyca2 - Simple graphical userinterface to manage a small CA

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Nov 2 22:54:48 UTC 2006


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: tinyca2 - Simple graphical userinterface to manage a small CA


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213600





------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro  2006-11-02 17:54 EST -------
Not an official review since I am just a rookie.

- rpmlint gives one warning on the src: tinyca2 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs. A
quick glance makes me think that the indentation used in the %description and
for the sed lines (in %setup) might be the culprit
- the buildroot line does not respect the preferred value for FE
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)). Since this is
just a PREFERRED not a MUST, should not be a blocker
- MUST: package is named according to the guidelines
- MUST: spec file name matches the base package name
- MUST: license field matches actual license
- MUST: the program is licensed under GPL but upstream did not include the
actual text of the license is the source, just the reference to it. I guess you
should ping upstream to add the license to the provided tar files.
- MUST: spec file is in American English
- MUST: spec file is legible 
- MUST: source matches upstream, md5sum being a7f63806dbdc38a34ed58e42e79f4822
for both
- MUST: builds fine in mock/i386. Since the content is actually just a perl
script + some message (.po) files which are formatted during the build phase, I
assume it would succesfully build on any platform; created rpm is noarch
- MUST: %find_lang macro is correctly used to pick locales
- MUST: no libraries are installed, so there is no need for calling ldconfig in
%post/%postun
- MUST: package is not relocatable
- MUST: owns all directories (and files) that it creates
- MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
- MUST: %clean is correct
- MUST: makes consistent use of macros
- MUST: no forbidden code/content included
- MUST: large documentation does not exist, so no need for a separate -doc
- MUST: the content of %doc is a small CHANGES file, so runtime functionality is
not affected
- MUST: no header or static files, no pkgconfig(.pc), no library files with a
suffix, no ibtool archives, so no need for -devel
- MUST: IS a GUI application; correctly includes %{name}.desktop (provided by
upstream) and properly installs it with desktop-file-install; someone more
experienced please comment if the "--add-category=X-Fedora" is still required
(according to yesterday's FESCO:
  === Packaging Committee Report ===
 * Voting to stop using the X-Fedora category in the desktop file is
currently underway via email.)
- MUST: does not take ownership of foreign files/directories
- SHOULD: includes available translations
- SHOULD: as specified above, builds fine in mock
- SHOULD: on a RHEL4 system the rpm installed fine but the program did not run,
failing with:
error: Failed dependencies:
        perl(Gtk2) is needed by tinyca2-0.7.5-2.noarch
        perl(Gtk2::SimpleMenu) is needed by tinyca2-0.7.5-2.noarch
        perl(Locale::gettext) is needed by tinyca2-0.7.5-2.noarch
On FC6 it detected the missing Requires, but failed to get installed even after
installing perl-Gtk2 and gettext:
error: Failed dependencies:
        perl(Locale::gettext) is needed by tinyca2-0.7.5-2.noarch
It seems that the correct Requires should be perl-gettext rather then gettext.
The program runs successfully after installing perl-Gtk2 and perl-gettext.
- SHOULD: no scriplets at all, so neither unsane scriptlets


Bottom line
- cosmetic fixes: make rpmlint happy by replacing multiple spaces with tab (non
blocker)
- make reviewers happy by using the recommended build root line (non blocker)
- use a correct Requires line (perl-gettext instead of gettext) (BLOCKER)


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list