[Bug 433926] Review Request: freehoo - Freehoo is a free console based messenger for Yahoo IM Service

[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: freehoo - Freehoo is a free console based messenger for Yahoo IM Service


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433926





------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray at gmail.com  2008-06-22 08:46 EST -------
MUST Items: 

OK - rpmlint is clean
OK - follows Naming Guidelines
OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec

xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
    + According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires
there is no need to mention Requires: guile readline glib2. RPM automagically
picks them up:
      [rishi at ginger x86_64]$ rpm --requires -qp freehoo-3.5.2-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm 
      [...]
      libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)  
      libguile.so.17()(64bit)  
      [...]
      libreadline.so.5()(64bit)
    + Requires: words is needed because freehoo uses /usr/share/dict/words.
    + freehoo.1 is now UTF-8 and conversion is not needed anymore.
    + Why is C_INCLUDE_PATH needed? It looks like the configure takes care of it:
      AC_SUBST(YAHOO2_CFLAGS)
      AC_SUBST(YAHOO2_LIBS)
    + Does 'make test' really work? I am getting:
      [rishi at ginger src]$ make test
      make: *** No rule to make target `test'.  Stop.
      [rishi at ginger src]$
    + Is '%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}/examples' really needed? Looks like
%{buildroot}/examples is not created.
    + The following two lines are not needed:
      %{__rm} -f  %{buildroot}/usr/doc/%{name}/autogen.sh
      %{__cp} -av %{buildroot}/usr/doc/%{name}/*
%{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/
      Just remove %{buildroot}/usr/doc because %doc copies the files anyway.
    + According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation the INSTALL
file should not be carried.

OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines

xx - License field meets actual license
    + Should be GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses

OK - upstream license file included in %doc
OK - spec file uses American English
OK - spec file is legible
OK - sources match upstream sources
OK - package builds successfully
OK - ExcludeArch not needed

OK - build dependencies correctly listed
    + You could consider listing each dependency on a separate line.

OK - no locales
OK - no shared libraries
OK - package is not relocatable
OK - file and directory ownership
OK - no duplicates in %file

OK - file permissions set properly
    + The preferred attribute definition is: %defattr(-,root,root,-)

OK - %clean present

xx - macros not used consistently
    + Use %{_infodir} instead of %{_datadir}/info. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros
    + Try not to mix freehoo and %{name} in the Spec. eg., %files. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros

OK - contains code and permissable content
OK - -doc is not needed
OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime
OK - no header files
OK - no static libraries
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no library files
OK - -devel is not needed
OK - no libtool archives
OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed
OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages
OK - buildroot correctly prepped
OK - all file names valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:

OK - upstream provides license text
xx - no translations for description and summary
OK - package builds in mock successfully
OK - package builds on all supported architectures
OK - package functions as expected
OK - scriptlets are sane
OK - subpackages are not needed
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no file dependencies outside /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin

-- 
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.