[Bug 496635] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-mdb - Mono Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop

[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=496635


Paul Lange <palango at gmx.de> changed:

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




--- Comment #43 from Paul Lange <palango at gmx.de>  2009-06-09 20:26:38 EDT ---
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review:
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: E: no-binary
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: W: no-documentation
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:47: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/DebuggerClient.dll*
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:49: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/DebuggerServer.exe*
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:51: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{buildroot}/usr/lib
monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel.i586: E: description-line-too-long The
monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel package contains development files for
monodevelop-debugger-mdb.
monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel.i586: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings.

* hardcoded paths are only the old location - OK
* no-documentation: no docs available
* no-binary, only-non-bin...: mono bins are not recognized

* TODO: shorten description line


- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK

- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec
OK

- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK

- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
OK

- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
OK

- 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.
OK

- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK

- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK

- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK - b60e9a0783f294aaa137c78e32c4f6be - md5 of the original tarball

- MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK - i386

- 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK - bug in x86_64 and mono-debugger not available on other architectures

- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK

- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK

- 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.
OK

- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK

- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK

- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK

- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.
OK

- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK

- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK

############################################################

One thing left before you can upload the package in CVS:

- Please shorten the Description line. (Simply place the %{name} variable in a 
new line.

This is the only thing left. It's only minor, so I'm going to approve this 
package right now. Thank you for the hard work. Do you already have been 
sponsored?

More info for the next steps: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_Sponsored

APPROVED

-- 
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.