[Bug 215256] Review Request: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox
Alias: firefox-32

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215256





------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com  2006-11-23 13:50 EST -------
==== REVIEW CHECKLIST ====
X rpmlint output:
E: firefox-32 description-line-too-long If you have both 32bit /usr/lib and
64bit /usr/lib64 Firefox installed, the standard
E: firefox-32 description-line-too-long /usr/bin/firefox launcher will run only
the 64bit version.  This launcher allows you
E: firefox-32 description-line-too-long to choose to run the 32bit browser by
running /usr/bin/firefox-32.  Please be sure
W: firefox-32 strange-permission setup-firefox-32.sh 0755
E: firefox-32 hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib
E: firefox-32 description-line-too-long If you have both 32bit /usr/lib and
64bit /usr/lib64 Firefox installed, the standard
E: firefox-32 description-line-too-long /usr/bin/firefox launcher will run only
the 64bit version.  This launcher allows you
E: firefox-32 description-line-too-long to choose to run the 32bit browser by
running /usr/bin/firefox-32.  Please be sure
E: firefox-32 only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
W: firefox-32 no-documentation
W: firefox-32 one-line-command-in-%trigger /usr/lib64/firefox-32/setup-firefox-32.sh
/tmp/firefox-32-0.0.1-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm.32469/usr/share/applications/firefox-32.desktop:
warning: boolean key "Terminal" has value "0", boolean values should be "false"
or "true", although "0" and "1" are allowed in this field for backwards
compatibility
/tmp/firefox-32-0.0.1-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm.32469/usr/share/applications/firefox-32.desktop:
error: invalid characters in value of key "StartupNotify", boolean values must
be "false" or "true" (found "True")
E: firefox-32 invalid-desktopfile
/tmp/firefox-32-0.0.1-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm.32469/usr/share/applications/firefox-32.desktop

I suggest you remove /usr/lib paths from the description and make sure the lines
are < 80 chars.

Definately remove the warren togami rant in the description, it does not belong
there, let's keep this professional.

rpmlint is saying setup-firefox-32.sh should be in /usr/share not /usr/lib64
move this to /usr/share or else add a comment in spec file indicating why it
should be in /usr/lib64

Fix desktop files so rpmlint likes them

Single line trigger files seem okay to me, not sure why rpmlint warns about them

- package named according to package naming guidelines
- spec filename matches %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- package licensed with open source compatible license
O spec file matches actual license.  I'm assuming since you are both the
upstream author and packager this is the case.
- license not packaged with source or included in %doc
- written in American english
- spec file legible
O There is no upstream so I cannot verify source match, but since packager *is*
upstream this is okay
- package successfully compiles and builds on FC6 x86_64
X all build dependencies listed in BR (missing desktop-file-utils for Requires)
- no locales
- no shared libraries
- package is not relocatable
X package does not own all directories it creates
- no duplicates in %files
- file permissions set properly
- package contains proper %clean section
- macro usage consistent
- contains code
- no large documentation
- no header files or static libraries
- no pkgconfig files
- package does not require a devel subpackage
- does not contain .la files
X .desktop file is not installed using desktop-file-install
- package does not own files or directories owned by other packages

==== MUST ====
- shorten description to 80 chars in length
- remove 2nd paragraph in description, instead place a comment in the spec file
pointing to bug #214100
- investigate rpmlint strange permissions warning, consider using 775 instead of
rpmlint likes that better
- move shell script to /usr/share as rpmlint suggests, or if it must be in
/usr/lib64 then add a comment in spec file indicating why
- make rpmlint happy with .desktop file
- install desktop files with desktop-file-install in %install
- packages with .desktop files should Requires: desktop-file-utils
- package must own the /usr/lib64/firefox-32/ directory if this is where the .sh
files ultimately goes (see rpmlint warning indicating this file should go in
/usr/share)

==== SHOULD ====
- remove paths /usr/lib etc. from description, it confuses rpmlint and they are
not needed for the description
- place comment above Source0 URL indicating that this is a shell script written
by packager and there is no web location to find the script
- Include copy of GPL license in %doc


-- 
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.