[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client

Sat Jul 11 03:26:58 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=510428

--- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur at gmail.com>  2009-07-10 23:26:57 EDT ---
hi,

(In reply to comment #4)
> Here is the review:
> 
>  +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
> 
> MUST Items:
> [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
> [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
> [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [FIXME?: covers this
> list and more]
> [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
> the Licensing Guidelines.
> [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license.
> [-] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
> license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
> license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
> File COPYING must be included.

Included.. I had missed it somehow..

> [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
> [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
> [=] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
> as provided in the spec URL.
> Source matched:
> $ md5sum axel-2.4.tar.gz 
> a2a762fce0c96781965c8f9786a3d09d  axel-2.4.tar.gz
> 
> Consider use %{version} in Source URL -
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_.25.7Bversion.7D
> 

Corrected..

> [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
> at least one supported architecture.
> [+] 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.
> Package compiled.
> [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
> [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
> %find_lang macro.
> [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
> symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
> %post and %postun.
> No shared libraries.
> [+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
> this fact in the request for review
> Package is not relocatable.
> [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
> create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
> create that directory.
> [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
> [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
> with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
> %defattr(...) line.
> [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
> %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
> [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
> section of Packaging Guidelines.
> [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
> described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
> [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
> [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
> runtime of the application.
> [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
> [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
> No static libraries.
> [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
> (for directory ownership and usability).
> Have not pkgconfig(.pc) files.
> [+] 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.
> Have not.
> [+] 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 should be
> removed in the spec.
> [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
> file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
> %install section.
> Only cli.
> [+] 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.
> 
> SHOULD Items:
> [=] 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.
> Source include it, but package does not (see above).

Corrected.

> [+] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
> should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
> No translations in spec.
> [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
> supported architectures.
> Done: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1466319
> [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
> A'm test it before and even try using... (wget more convenient :) , IMHO)
> [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
> Scriplets haven't used.
> [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
> package using a fully versioned dependency.
> [+] 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.
> [+] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
> /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
> instead of the file itself.
> No such dependencies.
> [+] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
> files.  

Spec and srpm :

http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/axel/axel.spec

http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/axel/axel-2.4-1.fc10.src.rpm

Other files from mock build can be found at :

http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/axel/

regards,

Ankur Sinha

-- 
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.