[Bug 225729] Merge Review: enscript

[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=225729





--- Comment #3 from Ondrej Vasik <ovasik at redhat.com>  2009-12-07 13:27:00 EDT ---
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ 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
- MUST(4,5,6): The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
+ MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
- MUST(1): The License field in spec match the actual license
- MUST(2): If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file must be included in %doc
+ MUST: The spec file written in American English
+ MUST: The spec file for the package is legible
- MUST(3): The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL
+ MUST: The package successfully compile
+ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
+ MUST: The spec file handle locales properly
0 MUST: Every package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic
linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ MUST: Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries
+ MUST: Package own all directories that it creates
+ MUST: Package does not list a file more than once in the spec file
+ MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line
+ MUST: Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
+ MUST: Package use macros consistently
+ MUST: Package contains code, or permissable content
+ MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
+ MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application
0 MUST: Header files in a -devel package
0 MUST: Static libraries in a -static package
0 MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
0 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
0 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
0 MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
+ MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages
+ 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.


1) License is actually GPLv2+ - from README:
"Enscript is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any
later version."

2) COPYING is not packaged in doc - please include it

3) enscript-1.6.4.tar.gz does NOT match upstream
cvs:
b5174b59e4a050fb462af5dbf28ebba3  enscript-1.6.4.tar.gz
upstream (http://www.iki.fi/mtr/genscript/enscript-1.6.4.tar.gz):
9abb0dee940d898af776508a5693ff24  enscript-1.6.4.tar.gz

please explain or fix Source0 - Source1 and Source2 do match upstream

Additionally fix: 
4) fix versioned obsoletes/provides
5) comment the patches, add bugzilla links (either in spec or in patches)
6) %find_lang usage to detect .mo files (to prevent issues in future releases)

Rest seems to be ok...

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