[Bug 548092] Review Request: shared-color-targets - Color targets from vendors for color calibration

[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=548092





--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-12-18 04:59:44 EDT ---
REVIEW:

+ rpmlint is silent

[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint
../RPMS/noarch/shared-color-targets-0.0.1-0.6.20091216git.fc12.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.

- I've got few complaints about file contents directory layout. 

-- First, nobody owns dir %{_datadir}/color/targets. This issue must be fixed.
-- Second, I don't see necessity of creating
{_datadir}/shared-color-targets/wolf_faust just for storing LICENSE and README.
Just mark them as %doc. If you wish to reflect the fact, that these two files
are relevant to wolf_faust, then just rename them into something like
README.wolf_faust and LICENSE.wolf_faust (and, after that, just mark them as
%doc). Also it resolves the issue with inclusion of files with licensing info
(see note below)
-- I'm not sure, that we need to package ChangeLog at all - it contains only
technical data, regarding repository changes.


+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.

- The License field in the package spec file contains wrong data. You forgot to
add CC-BY-SA (see LICENSE file in {_datadir}/shared-color-targets/wolf_faust
directory). Also I don't find any traces of "Public Domain" content. Perhaps,
test.it8 is licensed under this license?

- The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, MUST  be
included in %doc. See note above - you must mark LICENSE file for Wolf Faust's
work as %doc.

+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.

- The sources used to build the package, MUST match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. I've got 404 while trying to D/L Source0.


+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.

- The package MUST own all directories that it creates. See message above.

+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Ok, here is a TODO list:

* Provide downloadable Source0
* Fix License field in spec-file
* Package must own %{_datadir}/color/targets dir
* Relocate docs related to Wolf Faust's work.

-- 
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.