[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

Sat Feb 4 00:44:23 UTC 2006

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: monodoc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900

------- Additional Comments From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk  2006-02-03 19:44 EST -------
Hi,

> # rpmlint -v RPMS/i386/monodoc-1.1.9-2.i386.rpm
> I: monodoc checking
> E: monodoc no-binary
> E: monodoc only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
>
There are binaries, but it's probably because they're .NET ones instead of
standard ELF one which are causing the false positive.

> W: monodoc no-documentation
> 
> Ironic!

There is some external documentation, but it requires mod-mono and xsp to be
installed and as the package works fine without those extras, I felt it was
better to exclude them. I will include them if needs be.

> # rpmlint -v SRPMS/monodoc-1.1.9-2.src.rpm
> I: monodoc checking
> E: monodoc hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/mono/gac
> E: monodoc hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib
> 
> within %install any reason you've used some with /usr/lib instead of %{_libdir} ?
> e.g.
>   %{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/pkgconfig
>   %{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}/usr/lib/mono/gac

You have to. By default, all that is mono installs to /usr/lib. Now, if I'm on
an x86_64 or any other non-32 bit architecture, %{_libdir} is /usr/lib64. This
breaks a lot of stuff under Mono (from what I've seen).

Please see my bit on the fedorawiki on packaging for mono.

>       - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
> NOT CHECKED

It should ;-)

>       - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible
> license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of
> Packaging Guidelines.
>  
> "COPYING" file shows GPL
> If REDHAT can't comment about legal matters on mono/.net I'm sure I'm not
> qualified to :-(
> In general found individual sorce fiels didn't have licence info contained

Mono itself is a right mix of licences. monodoc is GPL. I can't comment on the
legal cloud around RH allowing mono in, but if a licence says GPL (or LGPL, BSD
or the likes), then I'm good with it.

> No %doc in %files, shoul dit be added and COPYING placed there?

Yes. As should AUTHORS and a couple of others.

>       - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms
> on at least one supported architecture.
> 
> 
> OK for me on i386
> FAILED to compile for me on x86_64 (likely flaky mono on my machine beagle is
> acting up to)

Which version of mono have you got on the 64 bit box? I'm on 1.1.3 and it
compiled without a hitch.

>       - MUST: All other Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
> 
> SEEMED OK, I had to install mono-devel

Good :-)

>       - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
> the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
> 
> 
> NO /locale/* files at all, not sure if monodoc has any i18n at all

I can't see any.

>       - MUST: If the package contains shared library files located in the
> dynamic linker's default paths,
>  
> No .so files, whether it needs to do anything similar with it's .dll files I
> don't know

.NET doesn't use .so (as such). Again, see my piece on the fedora wiki for
packaging for mono

>       - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
> base package using a fully versioned dependency.
> 
> 
> No separate -devel

As such, there aren't really devel packages for mono (other than mono-devel that
is!)

>       - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
> %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
> desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the
> desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged
> GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the
> spec file with your explanation.
> 
> 
> No .desktop file, unclear to me now if monodocs actually displays docs, in GUI,
> or just prepares thenm for later display, or browser based display.

monodoc is used inside of monodevelop and won't run outside of it.

>       - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
>  
> not done

I can't get mock to work, so I just compile it on the laptop and x86_64 box!

> Installed ok in i386 machine that was used to build
> no info how to start, or what it should do
> I tried "mono mod.exe" at least it gave a polite error rather than crashing

monodoc is not designed to work standalone.

Thanks for the feedback

-- 
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.