[Bug 472060] Review Request: mumbles - growl like notification system for gnome

Sat Jan 3 02:13:05 UTC 2009

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=472060

--- Comment #12 from Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de>  2009-01-02 21:13:02 EDT ---
Sorry it took so long, holydays, etc...

REVIEW for 7d6514c04ab3d2914b6cf971dba30c2c  mumbles-0.4-5.fc10.src.rpm

OK - MUST: 
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/mumbles-0.4-5.fc11.*
mumbles.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/mumbles/GrowlNetwork.py 0644
mumbles.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/mumbles/Mumbles.py 0644
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
because this python, save to ignore 

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.
FIX - MUST: The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines:
 - IMO Group tag should be 'User Interface/Desktops' instead of 'System
Environment/Libraries'
 - Timestamp of Source0 does not match, see
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps

OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2) and
meets the Licensing Guidelines. Note: GrowlNetwork.py is BSD
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by
MD5 a6b24223dc23e5022332586ffc454e84
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
i386
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
N/A - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro.
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
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. The %files section includes a
%defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK - MUST: The package contains code.
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
N/A - 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.
N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
FIX - 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 the file needs to be fixed,
the category "Application" is obsolete according to latest fdo specs, see
http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html
Add --remove-category="Application" to desktop-file-install
You should also add-category="Gnome"
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}.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See
MockTricks for details on how to do this.
OK - SHOULD: The package compiles and builds into noarch rpms
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described.
FIX - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane, but update-desktop-database if not needed,
because mumbles.desktop contains no MimeType, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
OK - SHOULD: The package has no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin.

Package looks good so far, but needs some final fixes before I will approve it.

BTW: The 'trick' from comment # 10 is not really necessary, 
%{python_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py*.egg-info will also 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.