[Bug 550139] Review Request: pino - A fast, easy and free Twitter client

[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=550139





--- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org>  2010-01-04 08:10:07 EDT ---
OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/pino-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
FIX - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv3+)
OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license
OK - MUST: license file included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
OK - MUST: spec is legible
OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5
005215400dcd00844558fbbe9b30fc46
OK - MUST: 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: handles locales properly with %find_lang
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.
OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
FIX - MUST: consistently uses macros: %{buildroot} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK - MUST: 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, then library
files that end in .so must go in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency
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 validated with
desktop-file-validate in the %install section.
OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8


SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
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: builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
OK - SHOULD: functions as described.
OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files 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 stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Compiler flags ok
OK - Debuginfo complete
OK - docs complete


Issues:
- The timestamp of Source0 still doesn't match SourceURL. Please use a download
manager that preserves timestamps, see 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps

- Build is not verbose, please use "waf build -v"

- You are not using parallel make, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make

- your macro usage is not consistent. You are using both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and
%{buildroot}. Please only use one.

-- 
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.