[Bug 526122] Review Request: vim-latex - Tools to view, edit and compile LaTeX documents in Vim

[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=526122


Rene Ploetz <reneploetz at gmx.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |reneploetz at gmx.de




--- Comment #1 from Rene Ploetz <reneploetz at gmx.de>  2009-09-30 16:37:39 EDT ---
This is an unofficial review (as I'm not sponsored yet):

+: ok
!: needs to be fixed
-: not applicable

MUST Items:
[+] rpmlint comes out clean (the no-documentation warning is not a problem when
having a *-doc package, but see below)
[+] packages are named according to package guidelines
[+] spec file name matches base package name
[+] the package license (Vim charityware) is correct and allowed in Fedora (the
license is GPL-compatible)
[+] license field matches the actual license
[-] license packaged in %doc if available separately in original package
[+] the spec file is legible and written in American English
[+] package md5sum matches upstream (3f0e34465b577aac6448c9c95da71abf)
[+] package builds fine in koji
[-] locales are properly handled
[+] no system libraries are bundled
[-] if package installs libraries in default paths run ldconfig in
%post/%postun
[+] package owns the directories it creates
[+] no file is listed twice
[+] permissions on files are explicitly set (via defattr)
[+] package must contain %clean with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[+] macros are consistently used
[+] package does contain code and/or permissible content
[+] (large) documentation goes into *-doc subpackage (see comments below)
[-] header files must be included in a *-devel subpackage
[-] static files must be included in a *-static subpackage
[-] packaging pkgconfig(.pc) files requires to set "Requires: pkgconfig"
[-] library files without a suffix (foo.so) must go into -devel subpackage if
libraries with a suffix (e.g. foo.so.0.0) are present.
[-] %{name}-devel packages must specify a fully versioned dependency on the
%{name} package
[-] packages must not contain any libtool (.la) archives
[-] (most) GUI applications need to include a %{name}.desktop file
[+] packages must not own any file or directory already owned by another
package
[+] first command in %install must be rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[+] all filenames in package are valid UTF-8


Should Items:
[!] if source package does not include license text as separate file, packager
should query upstream to include it
[-] if available,  description and summary in spec file should contain
translations for non-English languages
[+] packages build fine in mock
[+] packages should compile on all supported architectures
[+] packages work as expected in a short test
[+] scriptlets - if used - must be sane
[-] non-devel subpackages should require the base package
[-] pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in -devel package
[-] if package does require a file outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin, packager should require the package which provides the file (not the
file alone)


I have only a singe point to comment on:
Upstream does not include any kind of license text as separate file. Did you
try to query them to include a LICENSE file in their next release?
This is by no means a requirement, but it would be better to verify that our
package is legal even their homepage somehow vanishes and we have to prove our
the license classification.

-- 
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.