[Bug 429593] Review Request: podsleuth - probes, identifies, and exposes properties and metadata bound to iPods

Tue Jan 22 10:24:16 UTC 2008

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: podsleuth - probes, identifies, and exposes properties and metadata bound to iPods

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429593

wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro    |nobody at fedoraproject.org
               Flag|fedora-review?              |

------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro  2008-01-22 05:24 EST -------
I am sorry, but I will not be able to do a full review because I have no
computer to test this application on (it does not build for F7 which is the
newest in the Fedora line that I have access to).
However, here is a preliminary review, maybe it will be useful to someone who
decides to continue:

 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.
 [!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
       See note 1
 [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:empty
binary RPM:
 podsleuth.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/podsleuth/PodSleuth.dll.config
 podsleuth.x86_64: E: no-binary
 podsleuth.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
I think all of these are ignorable
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type:MIT
 [x] 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: d4ea13c3905fac15d1acf79b5fd56cca5b5e1287
podsleuth-0.6.0.tar.bz2
 [?] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
See note 2
 [x] 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.
 [x] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [x] 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.
One later version exists, but packaging an older version is intentional
 [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:x86/devel
 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on: only on devel/x86_64
 [?] Package functions as described.
 [?] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
See note 5
 [x] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [x] File based requires are sane.

=== Final Notes ===
1. Parallel make is not activated. If it is known to not work, please add a
comment about it. If it works, please add %{?_smp_mflags} to the make line
2. Is this program known to work on PPC ? I am not familiar with PPCs and I
cannot test either...
3. The devel package misses %defattr(-,root,root,-)
4. No debuginfo package was generated in my mock build. Should there be one?
5. I am not familiar enough with mono to know if the gacutil related info from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono#head-dd247e82e61dc1e89bc2bf315d4cbf0e11d48528
applies here or not.

-- 
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.