[Bug 519118] Review Request: nforenum - A format correcter and linter for the NFO language

[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=519118


Iain Arnell <iarnell at gmail.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell <iarnell at gmail.com>  2009-08-30 03:37:01 EDT ---
Two minor niggles:

It doesn't look like "upx" is actually necessary for the build (only for "make
release") - please remove the BuildRequires.

The name of the installed binary is too generic - please rename it to
"nforenum".

And a very minor grammatical issue - I would also consider changing the first
word of the description to "nforenum".

With those tiny changes, APPROVED.



+ source files match upstream.  
    diff -qr reveals no differences (svn export, checksum not suitable)

+ package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
+ summary is OK.
+ description is OK.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is OK.
+ license field matches the actual license.
    GPLv2+

+ license is open source-compatible.
+ license text is included.
+ latest version is being packaged.
- BuildRequires not proper.
    doesn't look like upx is actually necessary

+ compiler flags are appropriate.
+ %clean is present.
+ package builds in mock
    https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1643847

+ package installs properly.
+ rpmlint has no complaints:
    nforenum.src: I: checking
    nforenum.x86_64: I: checking
    nforenum-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
    3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

+ final provides and requires are sane:
    nforenum = 3.4.7-0.1.r2184.fc12
    nforenum(x86-64) = 3.4.7-0.1.r2184.fc12
=
    libc.so.6()(64bit)  
    libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)  
    libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)  
    libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)  
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)  
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)  
    libm.so.6()(64bit)  
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)  
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)  
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit)  
    libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)  
    libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit)  
    libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.5)(64bit)  
    libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)  

+ no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
+ owns the directories it creates.
+ doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
- generically named files
    "renum" is too generic - please rename it to "nforenum"

+ code, not content.
+ documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
+ %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

-- 
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.