[Bug 494695] Review Request: qutim - Multiplatform Instant Messenger on Qt4

[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=494695





--- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-11-06 08:16:45 EDT ---
Builds fine now.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1791960

REVIEW:

+ rpmlint is not silent:

[petro at Workplace ~]$ rpmlint Desktop/qutim-*
qutim-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/qutim/plugins/icq/clientidentify.h
qutim-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/qutim/src/3rdparty/qtwin/qtwin.cpp
qutim-debuginfo.i586: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/src/debug/qutim/src/3rdparty/qtwin/qtwin.cpp
qutim-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/qutim/plugins/icq/buddycaps.h
qutim-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/qutim/src/3rdparty/qtwin/qtwin.h
qutim-debuginfo.i586: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/src/debug/qutim/src/3rdparty/qtwin/qtwin.h
qutim-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/qutim/plugins/icq/clientidentify.cpp
qutim-devel.i586: W: no-documentation
qutim-icq.i586: W: no-documentation
qutim-irc.i586: W: no-documentation
qutim-jabber.i586: W: no-documentation
qutim-mrim.i586: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings.
[petro at Workplace ~]$ 

These issues should be fixed at %prep stage.

+ 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 does not fully  meet the Packaging Guidelines. There are some
unlisted Requires and some unneeded calls for ldconfig. Also, and most
important, I can;t find a package, who provides /usr/share/icons/mini.

So, you should add the following explicit requires:

hicolor-icon-theme (for /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps )
cmake (for /usr/share/cmake/Modules )

+ 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 sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Since it's a pre-release, and new version was
recently released, I'll wait until you update srpm to ver. 0.2.

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji log above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.

- The package must own all directories that it creates. Please, add
%{_libdir}/%{name} to the main package's %files section as %dir. Also add
%{_includedir}/%{name} as %dir in devel sub-package.

- A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. Unfortunately, you're listing %{_bindir}/%{name} twice in main
package's %files section.

- Permissions on files must be set properly, but there are some rpmlint
complaints regarding wrong permissions. See rpmlint log posted above.

+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
0 Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are placed in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package does not contain library files with a suffix.
+ The devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The packages does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly
installed with desktop-file-install 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 the package are valid UTF-8.

So, please, fix issues noted above, and I'll continue with review.

-- 
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.