[Bug 478655] Review Request: sion - GIO/GVFS management application

[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=478655


Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de>  2009-01-02 19:53:26 EDT ---
REVIEW FOR 8d0af5eecdb1a646e0f5ecce75be5648  sion-0.1.0-1.fc11.src.rpm

OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/sion-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2) and
meets the Licensing Guidelines.

FIX - MUST: The License field in the package spec does not match the actual
license. All the headers read: 
 *      This program 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; version 2 of the License.
This is GPLv2 only, AFIAR from my plugins Enrico usually uses this

OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.

NOTE - MUST: The spec file for the is legible, but I would prefer line brakes
in the configure statements

OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by
MD5 d38ba0f6468793f1860bbc6a5797916d
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on all
arches
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro.
OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes
a %defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK - MUST: The package contains code
OK - MUST: No large documentation files for a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.

NOTE - MUST: The Package contains a GUI application and includes a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section. But AFIAK we don't use vendor any
longer for new packages. See: 
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/DesktopFileVendor

OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (
or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described.
OK - SHOULD: The package has no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin
OK - SHOULD: Timestamp of Source matches


If you fix the License tag you can consider this package APPROVED. The rest is
up to you.

-- 
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.