[Bug 472] Review request: dynamips - IOS Emulator/Hypervisor

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472


Michal Ambroz <rebus at seznam.cz> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rebus at seznam.cz




--- Comment #5 from Michal Ambroz <rebus at seznam.cz>  2010-03-29 03:49:22 ---
Hello,
I would like to contribute to the formal review of the package:

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[X]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]  Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[X]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[X]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: FC12 i686
[X]  Rpmlint output:
False positive spellcheck warnings about Hypervisor - word is commonly used in
given context

rpmlint dynamips-0.2.7-5.fc12.src.rpm dynamips-0.2.7-5.fc12.i686.rpm
dynamips-debuginfo-0.2.7-5.fc12.i686.rpm
dynamips.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Hypervisor -> Hyper visor,
Hyper-visor, Supervisory
dynamips.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hypervisor -> hyper
visor, hyper-visor, supervisory
dynamips.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Hypervisor -> Hyper visor,
Hyper-visor, Supervisory
dynamips.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hypervisor -> hyper
visor, hyper-visor, supervisory
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

[X]  Package is not relocatable.
[X]  Buildroot is correct
[X]  Package is licensed with GPLv2
[?]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
license is not explicitly mentioned in all the files, however it is clearly
stated in the Changelog

[X]  If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[X]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[X]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[-]  Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
[X]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-]  The spec file handles locales properly.
[-]  ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[X]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[X]  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[X]  Package consistently uses macros.
[X]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[X]  Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]  Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]  Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-]  Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-]  Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-]  Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-]  Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[X]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[X]  Latest version is packaged.
[X]  Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]  Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[?]  Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[X]  Package functions as described - it was possible to start the virtual
machine and get to IOS prompt

[-]  Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]  The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-]  File based requires are sane.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://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.