[Bug 459639] Review Request: binclock - ncurses binary clock

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459639


manuel wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro




--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro>  2008-08-20 16:33:36 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM:
binclock.src:58: E: files-attr-not-set
binclock.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 22, tab: line 1)
binclock.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Fullscreen console binary clock.
--> please fix the 2 warnings as it is trivial

binary RPM:
binclock.noarch: W: no-documentation
--> it's OK, no doc from upstream
binclock.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Fullscreen console binary clock.
--> will be solved once the spec has it's cosmetic lifting done

 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
 [!] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: there is no license specified in the source, so the actual
license cannot be GPLv1. The copyright file in the debian folder mentions
GPLv2, but since it's just an addon not related to the source, we cannot rely
on it
 [-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package: 4f4978479ebd9efe459bcc94ceac41d4d4fb4d45
binclock_0.3.2-1.tar.gz
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [-] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:devel/x86_64, centos5/x86_64
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.


=== Issues ===
1. License is not correct. There is NO license at all specified in the source.
The only indication I have found is the copyright file in the debian folder
2. The source URL needs a bit of sanitizing, the preferred Source0 format is
based on
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
3. Small cosmetic fixes needed:
- No dot at the end of summary
- you should add a %defattr line in %files

-- 
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.