[Bug 507475] Review Request: skanlite - Scanning program

Mon Jun 22 23:55:17 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=507475

--- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de>  2009-06-22 19:55:16 EDT ---
REVIEW FOR 1afd8e1de03fda607c04fcded9ece2c0  skanlite-0.3-1.fc11.src.rpm

FIX - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
$ rpmlint Downloads/skanlite-*
skanlite.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/sv/skanlite/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/sv//common
skanlite.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/uk/skanlite/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/uk//common
skanlite.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/de/skanlite/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/de//common
skanlite.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/pt/skanlite/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/pt//common
skanlite.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/skanlite/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common

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 and meets the
Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2 or GPLv3
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 package is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by
MD5 4cd852d5be3c27a0ac9002c704b019bb
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
x86_64
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.
OK - 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.
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.
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
%{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content.
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
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'.
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.
OK - 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.
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 are valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
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 the package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures, see
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1431041
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described.
N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
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.
N/A - 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.

Other items:
OK - Latest version packaged
OK - RPM_OPT_FLAGS not honored
FIX - Timestamps are not preserved

Issues:
- Use %global instead of %define, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define
- Timestamp of Source0 does not match, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
- Do not use macros for %{__rm}, simply rm is ok
- Add TODO to %doc
- Remove --vendor="" from desktop-file-install
- Mark the docs as %doc (although rpm should be smart enough to do this
automatically).
- Remove the empty common symlinks or make them point to something that is
actually there, as Mamoru already said in bug 479147.

Notes:
- The summary is a little weak. How about "Lightweight scanning program for
KDE"?
- Use wildcarts for the Languages in the documentation:
  %{_kde4_docdir}/HTML/*/skanlite/
- The Help button does not work because khelpcenter is not pulled in by the
deps. This is ok, we are not requiring yelp for Gnome apps ether.

Please fix these issues and I will approve the package.

-- 
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.