[Bug 518779] Review Request: libnfc - NFC SDK and Programmers API

[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=518779


Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |martin.gieseking at uos.de
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |martin.gieseking at uos.de
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de>  2009-10-03 13:24:30 EDT ---
Here's my review of your package. You've done a good job, the package is pretty
clean. Just three minor suggestions:

- You should prefix the filenames of the patches with libnfc, e.g.
libnfc_no_cflags.patch

- I recommend to replace %{_datadir}/man/man1/* by %{_mandir}/man1/*

- in Requires, I would prefer to use the macro %{name} instead of explicitely
mention libnfc


$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-11-x86_64/result/libnfc-*
libnfc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

The warning is expected and can be ignored.

---------------------------------
keys used in following checklist:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.

[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.

[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
    - LGPLv3+ according to source file headers

[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.

[+] MUST: File(s) containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be
included in %doc.
    - COPYING added to %doc

[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.

[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.

[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
    $ sha1sum libnfc-1.2.1.tar.gz*
    2e0c4798d47c0bed3ef52bb0bce31b44210b2266  libnfc-1.2.1.tar.gz
    2e0c4798d47c0bed3ef52bb0bce31b44210b2266  libnfc-1.2.1.tar.gz.1


[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
    koji scratch build:
    https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1725893

[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, ...

[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.

[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. 
    - no locales

[+] 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.

[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
    - not relocatable

[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 

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

[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.

[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.

[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.

[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.

[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
    - no large docs

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

[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.

[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
    - no static libs packaged

[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'

[+] 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.

[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
    - .la files removed 

[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
    - no GUI

[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.

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

[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    - builds in mock

[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
    - builds in koji

[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.

[+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
    - tools package requires base package

[+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg

-- 
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.