[Bug 427481] Review Request: publican - publication tool chain

[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: publican - publication tool chain


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481





------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com  2008-02-07 10:53 EST -------
Here is the formal review (following
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines):

 +: good, -: needs fixing, =: needs attention

MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.

publican.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxslt  [ok]
publican.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL2  [Needs fixing - see above]
publican.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided documentation-devel  [ok]

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

[=] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[=] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[=] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.

See comments above: main package and -doc subpackage should mention the license
of the documentation and templates.

[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.

As commented earlier.

[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.

See suggestion above though.

[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.

[-] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)

See above posted comment.

[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[-] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of
Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not
need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.

Must use desktop-file-install

[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
[=] 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.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See
MockTricks for details on how to do this.


-- 
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.