[Bug 506833] Review Request: bisho - Moblin web services settings

Thu Aug 6 22:34:31 UTC 2009

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506833

--- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de>  2009-08-06 18:34:30 EDT ---
The spec at http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/bisho.spec does not match the
one in the package. mux-devel is missing.

mux-devel is also missing from the rawhide repo. Looking at
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8679 it looks a little
messed up: Why is the package locked? And why did you build it for F9???

Anyway, starting the
REVIEW for 6cfb7ae0d1ea8fcd504ff89f50a32079  bisho-0.10.2-1.fc11.src.rpm

TBD - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
OK - MUST: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: Spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+
FAIL - MUST: License field in spec file doesn't match the actual license: It's
GPLv2+, not GPLv2. Looking at the source you will find "... or any later
version"
OK - MUST: License file included in %doc
OK - MUST: Spec is in American English
OK - MUST: Spec is legible
OK - MUST: Sources match the upstream source by MD5
f0b354455eabc021045920123198fcd9
OK - MUST: Successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64
OK - MUST: No ExcludeArch
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, but you are
listing a couple of redundant deps that get already pulled in by other
packages: 
OK - MUST: Handles locales properly with %find_lang
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK - MUST: Not designed to be relocatable
OK - MUST: Owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: No duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: Consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: Package contains code, or permissable content
OK - MUST: No large docs
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
FAIL - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a
%{name}.desktop file, but that file is not properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section.
OK - MUST: packages does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:
N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
TBD - SHOULD: The the package doesn't build in mock because mux is not
available.
TBD - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
TBD - SHOULD: The package functions as described.
FAIL - SHOULD: Scriptlets are not sane. You are running gtk-update-icon-cache
only in %post.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: 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.
N/A - SHOULD: 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.

Other items:
OK - Latest stable version packaged
OK - RPM_OPT_FLAGS honored

Issues:
- Fix the license tag
- Drop 'Requires(post): /bin/touch', explained in bug 507480
- Drop the redundant BuildRequires, it's no use listing them: glib2-devel,
pkgconfig are pulled in be nearly every devel package, autoconf and automake
are required by libtool.
- The comment "Require these because ..." is misleading. gnome-common is
(likely) needed and gettext/intltool are needed because of the locales. So all
that is actually required to run autogen.sh is libtool. Please change the
comment to reflect this.
- Timestamps are nor preserved during %install, add "INSTALL='install -p'" to
make install, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
- Update icon-cache scriptlet with latest version from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
- What libtool archives are you trying to remove? There are none!
- AUTHORS and TODO are missing from %doc. Don't add NEWS and README (empty) or
ChangeLog (not useful)
- Use desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate for the desktop file, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage

Please fix the issues and contact rel-eng in order to get mux into the repo.
Once this is done, I will finish this review.

-- 
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.