7:32 a.m.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2109
Bug #: 2109
Summary: Request for sponsor: Kazam Video recorder
Classification: Unclassified
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: nnieto(a)noenieto.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
This is my first RPM I've built for the Kazam video recorder.
.spec file is here:
http://noenieto-com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/kazam.spec
Source rpm is here:
http://noenieto-com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/kazam-0.11-1.src.rpm
Description:
Kazam is a screencasting program. Depends on ffmpeg.
Rpmlint:
rpmlint kazam-0.11-1.src.rpm
kazam.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) screencasting -> screen casting,
screen-casting, screenwriting
kazam.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A screencasting program created with
design in mind.
kazam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US screencasts -> screen casts,
screen-casts, screenwriters
kazam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US videosharing -> video
sharing, video-sharing, videos haring
kazam.src: W: invalid-license LGPL
kazam.src:17: W: hardcoded-packager-tag Noe
kazam.src:40: W: setup-not-quiet
kazam.src: W: invalid-url Source0: kazam-0.11.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
--
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.
You are the assignee for the bug.
6:17 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2109] Request for sponsor: Kazam Video recorder
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2109
Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hobbes1069(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> 2011-12-27 19:17:01 CET ---
This is an informal review since I can't sponsor you.
1. There's no point in defining name, version, and release macros manually. You
get them for free when you use the Name, Version, and Release tags. Also, you
should use the dist tag "%{?dist}" on the end of the release number of the
Release tag.
2. If the Source: tag isn't a full URL then you need to explain with comments
how the source was obtained sufficient for another to generate the same
archive[1].
3. Buildroot, rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install, all of %clean, and %defattr
in %files are not needed unless you want to build for EL5[2].
4. Packager and Vendor tags should not be used[3].
5. Description header in %description is redundant and doesn't aid readability.
Both rpm and yum will add their own "Description" header during info display.
6. Is "--record=INSTALLED_FILES" the required method for installing with this
package? Does the standard method[1] not work?
7. Generally the BuildRequires: should be one per line unless there's a logical
grouping, listing them all together is a readability problem.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
--
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.
You are the assignee for the bug.
4715
days inactive
4715
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
1 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
RPM Fusion Bugzilla