[Bug 495412] Review Request: flamerobin - Graphical client for Firebird

[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=495412





--- Comment #18 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-06-10 07:08:11 EDT ---
REVIEW:

+ rpmlint is almost silent - it only complains about empty sections, which
should be removed (however it's a purely cosmetic change):

[petro at Workplace Desktop]$ rpmlint flamerobin-*
flamerobin.i386: W: empty-%post
flamerobin.i386: W: empty-%postun
flamerobin.i386: W: empty-%posttrans
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[petro at Workplace Desktop]$

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

+/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines with one remaining issue -
doc-files are listed twice. First - as %doc, second - as a contents of
%{_datadir}/%{name}/docs. I advice you to add

rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/docs

at the end of the %install section. Btw, maybe it's better to list docs as
"%doc docs/*" rather than "%doc docs" ? 

+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The  file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See links above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ 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. There is a single place where the
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT is used instead of %{buildroot} - this may be ignored.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ No large documentation files.
+ Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly
installed (checked with desktop-file-validate in the %install section).
+ 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.

Conclusion:

* consider to remove empty sections from spec-file
* remove duplicated docs from $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}

-- 
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.