[Bug 2101] Review request: vbam - High compatibility Gameboy Advance Emulator combining many VBA developments

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2101

--- Comment #22 from Jirka <hladky.jiri at googlemail.com> 2012-01-29 23:48:36 CET ---
Hi Jeremy,

it's fine to just inform developers about the compile warnings.

I have checked vbam-1.8.0.1054-2.fc16.src.rpm package. There is one missing
dependency to successfully build the package:

openal-soft-devel

Can you please update SPEC file?

Package review:

+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
?: Question or clairification needed
N: not applicable

MUST:
[=] rpmlint output
    FSF issue - upstream informed
    vbam-gtk.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gvbam
    vbam-wx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wxvbam

    Please consider to ask upstream to write a minimal man page - just stating
    what each of this command is doing

[+] follows package naming guidelines
[+] spec file base name matches package name
[+] package meets the packaging guidelines
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license: GPLv2
[+] license field matches the actual license.
[+] license file is included in %doc: License.txt
[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches (f9a67e65dd6df4d5190321f6fc758c24)
[+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F16 x86 32-bit
[N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch
[-] all build requirements in BuildRequires
    openal-soft-devel is missing
[+] spec file handles locales properly
[N] ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] no bundled copies of system libraries
[N] no relocatable packages
[+] package owns all directories that it creates
[-] no files listed twice in %files
    doc/gpl.txt doc/License.txt
    I think it's enough to install these files only in common subpackage

[+] proper permissions on files
[+] consistent use of macros
[+] code or permissible content
[N] large documentation in -doc
[+] no runtime dependencies in %doc
[N] header files in -devel
[N] static libraries in -static
[N] .so in -devel
[N] -devel requires main package
[N] package contains no libtool archives
[+] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate
[+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
[+] all filenames in UTF-8

SHOULD:
[+] query upstream for license text
[+] description and summary contains available translations
[?] package builds in mock: Didn't test
[+] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86 32 bit
[?] package functions as described: Application is running but I have not tried
to load anything into it
[+] sane scriptlets
[+] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[N] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[=] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts


Summary:
blocking issues: 
 all build requirements in BuildRequires
 no files listed twice in %files
should issues:
 Please check the man page issue. Perhaps it would just enough to move man page
from sdl subpackage to the common package and add vbam-gtk and vbam-wx to the
names? Please check /usr/share/man/man3/printf.3.gz and man fprintf to see what
I mean - here one man page describes multiple variants of printf functions.

We are almost at the end of the review process. Good job!

Regards
Jirka

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.