[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #30 from Göran Uddeborg <goeran at uddeborg.se> 2012-10-27 21:47:32 CEST ---
Alright, here is my review:

Keys
====
[+] package passes
[0] not applicable
[-] package fails

Issues
======
- As mentioned in comment 29, the source package does not contain the correct
version of the script.

- Why do you explicitly install COPYING, and list it with the full path?  Why
not just do "%doc %SOURCE2" in the %files section, and take advantage of the
automatic handling in rpm?

- I would probably have considered the rsvg-convert call as part of %build
rather than %prep.  But it's a matter of taste; if you disagree I won't insist.

- The Fedora packaging of Wine uses the category X-Wine.  Maybe it would make
sense to use it in winetricks too?

- Unless I'm mistaken, the directory /usr/share/icons/hicolor and
subdirectories are not owned by any package required by winetricks, right? 
Unless I misunderstand the rules
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership),
that means that winetricks should also own /usr/share/icons/hicolor and
children.


MUST Items
==========
[-] rpmlint output is clean [the script version issue]
[+] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] The package must meet the Licensing Guidelines.  [I.e., it does meet the
RPM Fusion rules, but can't be in Fedora itself because of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_bits]
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[+] The license file must be included in %doc.
[+] The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[-] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
[+] The package MUST successfully compile and build
[0] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[0] The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[0] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the
dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[0] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review
[-] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
[+] A package must not list a file more than once
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[0] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
[0] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[0] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[0] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency
[0] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[+] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


SHOULD Items
============
[+] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[0] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[?] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[+] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[0] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency.
[0] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is
usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[0] 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.
[+] Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

-- 
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.