[Bug 211718] Review Request: thewidgetfactory - A tool for previewing widgets

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: thewidgetfactory - A tool for previewing widgets Alias: thewidgetfactory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211718 peter(a)thecodergeek.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG ------- Additional Comments From peter(a)thecodergeek.com 2006-10-21 04:21 EST ------- Hi, Luya. Ok, here we go. :) ** MUST items ** GOOD: rpmlint on the source RPM is silent The binary RPM gives one error: E: thewidgetfactory standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin See the Blockers section below for more information. GOOD: Timestamps in the source appear to be preserved. GOOD: Package complies with the NamingGuidelines GOOD: The spec file is named appropriately, in the form "%{name}.spec" GOOD: License is open-source compatible (GPL), and the License field in the spec file correctly notes this. GOOD: A copy of the license is included in the package (COPYING, in %doc) GOOD: The spec is written in American English, and is clear and legible. GOOD: The source tarball included in the SRPM matches that of upstream. $ md5sum thewidgetfactory-*.tar.gz 60175721233c6f265326fcdc0334c269 thewidgetfactory-0.2.1-srpm.tar.gz 60175721233c6f265326fcdc0334c269 thewidgetfactory-0.2.1-upstream.tar.gz GOOD: The package successfully builds in mock (FC6/x86) GOOD: All necessary BuildRequires listed. (Probably a bit simpler than many other packages, since there is only one. ^_^) GOOD: No duplicate files listed in %files. GOOD: The spec contains a %clean section, which invokes a single "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" command. GOOD: Usage of macros in the spec is consistent. GOOD: The package contains code, and no prohibited content. GOOD: Files marked as %doc do not affect the program at runtime if not present. GOOD: Package contains no .la libtool archives. ** SHOULD items ** GOOD: A copy of the license (GPL) is included in the tarball from upstream ("COPYING"). GOOD: The package appears to build properly on all supported architectures that I was able to test (built in an FC6/x86 Mock chroot, and is currently chugging through an FC5/x86 Mock build, which I expect to succeed). GOOD: The software contained in the binary package runs as described, with no noticable errors (FC6/x86). ** Not Applicable ** N/A: The package does not require ExcludeArch semantics. N/A: The package does not require %find_lang semantics, since it installs no locales. N/A: The package does not require %post/%postun calls to /sbin/ldconfig, since it installs no shared libraries. N/A: Package is not relocatable. N/A: There is no large documentation, so a -doc subpackage is not needed. N/A: No header files, shared or static library files, so no -devel subpackage is needed. N/A: The package contains no pkgconfig (.pc) files. N/A: The package does not use translations, so no translated %description or Summary tag is available. N/A: No scriplets are used. N/A: No subpackages exist, so worries about fully-versioned Requires for those are not present. ** Blockers ** BAD: The application includes a GUI interface, but no .desktop file for that application. (See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop on the wiki for more information.) If the source from upstream does not have one, as it seems for this package, please create one yourself and include it as a separate Source in the RPM. (Remember, then, to add the desktop-file-install scriptlet to the %install section of the spec file, and add desktop-file-utils as a BuildRequires for this script call. Also, you'll need to add the generated .desktop file to your %files listing.) BAD: The package should not own %{_bindir}, which is owned by the filesystem package. Unless there is good reason for such ownership to be shared, this should be changed in the %files to only list the specific binary within that directory (such as "%{_bindir}/twf"). -- Those are the only two blockers I can see in this. Fix those, and I'll approve the package for importing into CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.