[Bug 515351] Review Request: vdr-epgsearch - Powerful schedules menu replacement plugin for VDR

[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=515351





--- Comment #2 from Ville-Pekka Vainio <vpivaini at cs.helsinki.fi>  2009-08-08 11:36:32 EDT ---
As this is only my second review, I have listed the relevant must and should
items below with some comments.

MUST items:

MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
Rpmlint output:

vdr-epgsearch.i586: W: non-standard-uid /etc/vdr/plugins/epgsearch/conf.d vdr
vdr-epgsearch.i586: W: non-standard-uid /etc/vdr/plugins/epgsearch vdr
vdr-epgsearch.i586: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/vdr/data/epgsearch vdr
vdr-epgsearch.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0:
%{name}-0.9.25.beta14-fedora.patch

That's ok, rpmlint doesn't see Patch0 being installed, not a problem.

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 unless your package has an exemption: OK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines: I've tried to check all
of these to the best of my knowledge and it should be OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+, OK.
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license:
OK
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: COPYING has GPLv2, OK.
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English: I presume this is OK,
my knowledge of the differences between American and British English is
limited.
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 primary architecture: OK, checked with mock.
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines: OK,
checked with mock.
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro: OK
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun: doesn't apply to VDR plugins.
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory: seems to be OK.
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings: seems to be OK.
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line: 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: 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. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present: Not tested but I don't see why not, so OK.
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time: Seems to be 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 items:

SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock: OK.
SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures: Couldn't test.

SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example: I can't test this
item currently, it'll have to wait for a while. I consider this a review
blocker, although one which is up to me and not the packager.

-- 
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.