[Bug 516433] Review Request: blazeblogger - A simple to use but capable CMS for the command line

[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=516433


Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |martin.gieseking at uos.de
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |martin.gieseking at uos.de
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de>  2009-08-12 14:24:58 EDT ---
Hello Sebastian,

this is a small, pretty clean package. I couldn't find any issues that have to
be fixed. Here comes my review:

$ rpmlint blazeblogger*.rpm
blazeblogger.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/blaze-config
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

The warning is expected and can safely be ignored.

---------------------------------
keys used in following checklist:

[+] OK
[#] OK, not applicable
[-] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] 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 unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
    - GPLv3 (executables) and GFDL (docs)

[+] 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.
    COPYING and FDL listed in %doc

[+] 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.
    - md5 hash is 79b240e196cdb2f2a765e4ef10546163

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[#] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture,... 
    - it's a Perl package that is expected to work on all architectures

[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
    - no explicit build dependencies required 

[#] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
    - no locales

[#] 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.
[#] 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[#] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
    - no directories created

[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[#] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
    - no large docs

[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[#] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[#] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[#] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[#] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[#] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[#] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[#] 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. 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.
    - no GUI

[#] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
   - doesn't own any directories

[+] 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: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    - builds in mock

[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
    - I've tested some of the provided Perl scripts and they worked as expected 

[#] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
    - no scriptlets

-- 
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.