[Bug 478668] Review Request: lxmusic - Lightweight XMMS2 client with simple user interface

Sat Apr 11 11:15:58 UTC 2009

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=478668

--- Comment #17 from Martin-Gomez Pablo <pablo.martin-gomez at laposte.net>  2009-04-11 07:15:57 EDT ---
Package Review:
==================================
----------------------------------
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
----------------------------------
==> OK (no output)
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec 
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must meet the  Packaging Guidelines.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meet other legal requirements.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
----------------------------------
==> NOT OK
The actual license seems to be "GPLv2" and not "GPLv2+"

----------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
----------------------------------
==> OK (Tested on F10 and Rawhide i386)
----------------------------------
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. 
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of
that specific package.
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines. 
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of
the application.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. 
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
----------------------------------
==> OK (builds fine on F10 and Rawhide i386)
----------------------------------
SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. 
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------
SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this
is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------

Summary
==================================
Change the license in the license field
==================================

So you remove a "+" and I confirm my APPROVING

-- 
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.