[Bug 225670] Merge Review: cups

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225670





--- Comment #1 from Adam Tkac <atkac at redhat.com>  2009-12-17 08:40:35 EDT ---
Review of cups-1.4.2-17.fc13:

Legend: "+" means OK, "-" means not OK.

+ MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
- MUST(1): The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
+ MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
+ MUST: The License field in spec match the actual license
+ MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file must be included in %doc
+ MUST: The spec file written in American English
- MUST(2): The spec file for the package is legible
+ MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL
MUST: The package successfully compile
+ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
- MUST(3): The spec file handle locales properly
+ MUST: Every package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic
linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
- MUST(4): Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries
+ MUST: Package own all directories that it creates
+ MUST: Package does not list a file more than once in the spec file
- MUST(5): Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line
+ MUST: Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
+ MUST: Package use macros consistently
+ MUST: Package contains code, or permissable content
+ MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
+ MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application
+ MUST: Header files in a -devel package
+ MUST: Static libraries in a -static package
+ MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
+ 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
+ MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
+ MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built
+ MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
+ MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages
+ MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
+ MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

2:
  - don't define initdir macro, use existing %{_initddir} macro
  - don't use /usr/lib/cups for binaries. Directory /usr/libexec/cups should be
    used instead.
  - don't use obsolete Prereq and BuildReq. Use modern Requires and
    BuildRequires instead.
  - remove unneeded versioned BuildRequires (gcc, libselinux, audit-libs, dbus)
  - drop -fstack-protector-all gcc flag. -fstack-protector is sufficient, I
    think. Consider to build cupsd (and other programs exposed on the network) 
    as PIEs.
  - append %{?_smp_mflags} to "make" command
  - don't use hardcoded paths like /usr/bin, /usr/share, /etc. Use appropriate 
    rpm macro (%{_bindir}, %{_datadir}, %{_sysconfdir}) instead.

3:
  - use %find_lang to package locale files. Check
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files 
    for more info.

4:
  - fire away Source4 and use system wide pstopdf, please.

5:
  - vast majority of binaries have incorrect perms. Please use 755 permissions 
    for all shared libraries and binaries.

There are so many rpmlint errors. Please fix them or explain why are they
invalid.

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