[Bug 226434] Merge Review: star

[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=226434


Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |loganjerry at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |loganjerry at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com>  2009-08-26 12:06:02 EDT ---
It's about time someone reviewed this, isn't it?  Rpmlint shows some things
that need to be fixed.

star.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/star-1.5/AN-1.5
star.spec:84: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
star.spec:201: W: macro-in-%changelog files
star.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 36, tab: line 51)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings.

The first warning is triggered because of some ISO8859-1 characters in the
file.  Please convert that file to UTF-8.

The second warning is harmless.

To fix the third warning, change "%files" to "%%files" in the changelog entry
of Fri Aug 26 2005.

Please also fix the fourth warning by using either spaces or tabs, but not
both.

MUST items:
XX: rpmlint output (see above)
OK: package named according to package naming guidelines
OK: spec file name matches package name
XX: package meets packaging guidelines

First, there are no comments on the patches, as required by
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment

Second, the BuildRoot does not contain %{release}, as required by
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag

OK: package has a Fedora-approved license
OK: license field matches actual license
OK: license file in %doc
OK: spec file in American English
OK: spec file is legible
OK: source matches upstream source (checked with md5sum)
OK: package builds successfully on at least one primary arch
NA: appropriate use of ExcludeARch
OK: all build dependencies in BuildRequires
NA: proper locale handling
NA: call ldconfig in %post and %postun
OK: no relocatable packages
OK: package owns all directories it creates
OK: no duplicate listings in %files
OK: permissions on files are set correctly
OK: appropriate %clean section
OK: consistent use of macros
OK: code or permissible content
NA: large documentation in -doc
OK: no runtime dependencies in %doc
NA: header files in -devel
NA: static libraries in -static
NA: Requires pkgconfig
NA: .so files in -devel
NA: -devel requires base package
OK: no libtool archives
NA: desktop file for GUI apps
OK: do not own files/dirs owned by other packages
OK: clean at top of %install
OK: all filenames are UTF-8

SHOULD items:
NA: ask upstream to include a license file
NA: include translated description and summary fields
OK: package builds in mock
OK: package builds and compiles on all supported arches
OK: package functions as described (minimal testing only)
OK: sane scriptlets
NA: subpackages require the base package
NA: placement of pkgconfig files
NA: file dependencies

Finally, would it be helpful to include READMEs/README.linux in %doc?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.