[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer

[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: streamer


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224





------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org  2006-07-12 10:39 EST -------
(In reply to comment #17)
> * package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
> 
>   It amuses me that meeting the packaging guidlines is an item within the
> packaging guidelines checklist

The package review guidelines is not actually a checklist of things in the
packaging guidelines. The packaging guidelines as a whole encompasses a bunch of
pages on the wiki (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging), which include
the main packaging guidelines, the package naming guidelines, plus a number of
pages on language-specific guidelines. Extras contributors are expected to have
read the main packaging and naming guidelines and be familar with them
(committing them all to memory isn't expected but it's worth re-reading them
from time to time as a refresher and to catch up with changes). The review
guidelines page just includes a checklist of things that apply to most packages.

> * All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
> are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those
> as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
> 
>   Some BRs are specified, I have not checked the list is exhaustive

Building the package in mock is a good way to test this.

> * If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
> fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of
> that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
> 
>   no such statement, assume this is correct.

This relates to the use of the "Prefix:" rpm tag. If present, the package is
telling rpm that it's supposed to be relocatable (whether it actually is or not
depends on how the rest of the package is built). Some packagers tend to include
the "Prefix:" tag because they've copied the spec from some template that
included it. This check is there to catch that mistake.

> * A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
> 
>   ok, all files explicitly listed, no wildcards used at all
>   would it be considered neater to use %{_libdir}/streamer/*.so instead?

This check is looking for instances of the same file being installed in multiple
different places (e.g. a README installed in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} and
also %{datadir}/%{name}) rather than being included more than once in the %files
list (which rpmbuild will warn about actually).

(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #19)
> 
> > - Added wildcard in files section
> 
> I was genuinely asking if it would be better to use the wildcard, or have the
> multiple single files, I'd be interested to see an answer from an experienced
> reviewer on this ...

This is really a matter of personal preference and may vary from package to
package. In general I like to enumerate all of the files individually,
particularly for binaries, as this results in unpackaged file errors if you
build a later version of the package that contains additional files, something
that you really should know about as the new files might clash with some other
package. An alternative approach here would be to use rpmdiff to compare old and
new packages. For some packages though, the list of files would simply be
unmanagable if done individually, so using a wildcard is the only sane option.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.