[Bug 499951] Review Request: netdiscover - A network address discovering/monitoring tool

[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=499951


arthurguru <arthurg.work at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |arthurg.work at gmail.com




--- Comment #1 from arthurguru <arthurg.work at gmail.com>  2009-05-11 20:35:40 EDT ---
Hi Patrick,

Here is my informal review of package netdiscover

MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
- netdiscover-0.3-1.20090503cvs.fc10.src.rpm OK
- netdiscover-0.3-1.20090503cvs.fc7.i386.rpm OK
- netdiscover-debuginfo-0.3-1.20090503cvs.fc7.i386.rpm OK
- OK

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

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

MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
- DistTag doc says append to the end for the simple example used.
- Release: 1.20090503cvs%{?dist}
- OK
Note for more experienced reviewers
Potential for {?dist} being mixed with an {?alphatag} suffix, I’ve seen a
format being used similar to this
Release: 1%{?dist}.20090503cvs
Maybe an extra snapshot example in NamingGuidelines would clear this up.

MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
- OK, GPLv3

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
- file "COPYING" which contains the license is not listed in %doc
- Not 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
- a0c8fe2025547528aa47d10ac8217282 *netdiscover-0.3-20090503cvs.tar.gz (RPM)
- a0c8fe2025547528aa47d10ac8217282 *netdiscover.tar.gz (upstream)
- OK

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
- OK

MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
- OK

MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
- OK, no locales available

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.
- OK, no shared libraries.

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, no relocatable package

MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
- OK

MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
- OK

MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
- 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: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
- OK, no large documentation

MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application.
- OK

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
- OK, no header files

MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- OK, no static libraries

MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
- OK, no .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.
- OK, no library files.

MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
- OK, not a -devel package.

MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
- OK, no .la files

MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file
- OK, no gui available

MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
- 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

Conclusion:
License file included in source but not specified in %doc
Concern over %{dist} tag location when using snapshot release

Kind regards,
Arthur Gouros.

-- 
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.