[Bug 168310] Review Request: swish-e <bkyoung>

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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

Summary: Review Request: swish-e <bkyoung>


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168310





------- Additional Comments From bkyoung at users.sourceforge.net  2005-10-24 17:33 EST -------
This has already been discussed. Everybody agrees the first few RPMs failed the
Fedora Extra standards. I was generally following the Fedora Distribution RPMs,
like the kernel which uses _FC4 naming convention, and the rpm package that has
executables in /usr/lib, and did not realize that Fedora Extras had different
standards. I also was just modifying a supplied (in the Swish-e distribution)
generic RPM spec file that failed all Fedora Extra standards, but worked just
fine for casual use.

The 12.fc4, and the new 13.fc4 RPM should meet Fedora Extra requirements. If, in
meeting those requirements, some functionality is broken, a note in the RPM
encourages users to post constructive comments to resolve the issues, and
overcome parts of the Swish-e build system that predates Fedora Extras.

I'm assuming that Swish-e itself passes Fedora Extra standards, as it is present
in just about all distributions.

Point by point comparison:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines
1.1 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines
  1.1 Matches upstream tarball.
      No '_' in name.
  1.2 No multiple versions at this time.
  1.3 swish-e.spec is proper.
  1.4 Package version 2.4.2
  1.5 Proper use of %{dist}
  1.6+ Proper use of addon perl package names.
1.2 Passes Legal
1.3/1.4 Modified an existing package, then rewrote it, matches with minimal
fedora-newrpmspec
1.5 rpmlint errors are reduced to a few in debug rpm and a few in Perl modules.
The errors are consistent with errors in other approved packages.
1.6 ChangeLog meets requirements.
1.7 No packager/vendor/ copyright tag used. Summaries do not end in period.
1.8 Buildroot tag acceptable.
1.9 Requires are assumed to be automatic.
1.10 fedora-rmdevelrpms passed.
1.11 Summary and descriptions appear okay.
1.12 Encoding passed.
1.13 All docs in separate sub package (named correctly). Uses Documentation group.
1.14 Static libraries excluded.
1.15 No duplication of system libraries.
1.16 Configuration files are marked.
1.17 No desktop files.
1.18 Macros are used liberally.
     Using %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
consistently.
1.19 Timestamps okay.
1.20 Parallel make not used.
1.21 Scriptlets meet requirements.
1.22 Running scripts at proper times.
1.23 Conditional dependencies are excluded for default build.
1.24 Package built in user account.
1.25 Not relocatable.
1.26 Code vs Content seems acceptable.
 

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewGuidelines
1 Review Purpose

"This does not mean that the package (or the software being packaged) is
perfect, but it should meet baseline minimum requirements for quality."

Package meets minimum quality requirements.

1.2 Review Process
1.2.1 Contributor
 Still on step 3.
1.2.2 Reviewer
Possible blocker:
      - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.

Some examples are dependent on files in the docs, but they are in a separate doc
package. Installing the docs package using --exludedocs makes no sense.

Other than a few blockers caused by a outdated build system (swish-e), the RPM
should be acceptable for Fedora Core 4. A new RPM package will be required for
fc5 and 2.4.3, most likely due to libxml2 changes.



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.