[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
  Web www.spinics.net

[Bug 808336] Review Request: diaicons - Beautiful icon set for dia diagram editor

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-30 06:13:45 EDT ---
Ok, good. One more note - please, adjust name of the spec-file to match the
package's name, e.g. rename diaicons.spec to the dia-gnomeDIAicons.spec (as
required by the Fedora policy). Assuming that you did that here is my formal


Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+/- rpmlint is not completely silent

work ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint
dia-gnomeDIAicons.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US diaicons ->

^^^ False positive. Should be omitted.

dia-gnomeDIAicons.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Dia diagram editor
comes with a default set of icons that get the job done. To have diagrams that
impress, diaicons will provide a Microsoft-Visio-look-alike icon set for that
eye-candy of network diagrams.

^^^ Please shorten the description line length by reformatting them to fit the
80 sympols-per-line length.

dia-gnomeDIAicons.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag

^^^ Please, provide %changelog section. I know - this looks quite archaic but
it still required by the Fedora Policy.

dia-gnomeDIAicons.noarch: W: no-documentation

^^^ We can't fix that so this should be omitted. The package really does not
contain any READMEs.

dia-gnomeDIAicons.noarch: E: script-without-shebang

^^^ False positive. Should be omitted.

dia-gnomeDIAicons.src:3: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab:
line 1)

^^^ easyfix.

dia-gnomeDIAicons.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dia-gnomeDIAicons-0.1.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 5 warnings.

^^^ You should use a full path to the original URL, e.g.


work ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines. 

- The spec file name MUST match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec. See my note above.

+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines. Well, I failed to find the exact licensing conditions but
the project's page on SF.net says that it licensed under GNU GPL.

- The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license.
Since the project's author doesn't explicitly state the version of the GPL this
means that the correct tag value is GPL+ (NOT a GPLv2+). Please fix it.

+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL. 

work ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: sha256sum ~/Desktop/rib-network-v0.1.tar.gz
work ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: 

See my advice regarding source's name above.

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files

- Permissions on files MUST be set properly. Several files are marked as 0755.
Please add the following line to the %prep section:

chmod 0644 shapes/RIB-Network/*

+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Please fix the issues mentioned above, and I'll finish reviewing.

Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
package-review mailing list

[Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

Add to Google