[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jan 19 14:36:53 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=187318
Gratien D'haese <gratien.dhaese at it3.be> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |gratien.dhaese at it3.be
--- Comment #46 from Gratien D'haese <gratien.dhaese at it3.be> 2009-01-19 09:36:45 EDT ---
Official review of 47a66f982319e2c8d0b73a6400f4342f mondo-2.2.8-1.fc9.src.rpm
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
Clean.
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
Good.
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
Good.
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
==> in spec file the line:
Source: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/src/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
can better be called
Source0: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/src/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
Good.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Good.
- MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
Good.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
Good.
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review.
Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
Good. Might want to trim the changelog (getting too large to be useful in spec
file)
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
Good.
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
Good.
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug
filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not
compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be
placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New
packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so
they should put this description in the comment until the package is
approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation
with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more)
of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc ,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
Spec file mentions: ExcludeArch: ppc
==> Please read above recommendation carefully and do what is required.
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
Requires: rtld(GNU_HASH)
seems to be missing.
- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
Good.
- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
An example of the correct syntax for this is:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
NA.
- MUST: 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.
NA.
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
Good.
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
Good.
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
==>
In spec file there is : %defattr(-,root,root)
Please replace it with : %defattr(-,root,root,-)
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
Good.
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
Good.
- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines .
Good.
- MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)
NA.
- 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.
Good.
- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
NA.
- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
NA.
- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
NA.
- 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.
NA.
- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
NA.
- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
Good.
- 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 the 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.
NA.
- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership
with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package.
If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that
another package owns, then please present that at package review time.
NA.
- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.
Good.
- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
/usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/AUTHORS: ASCII text
/usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/ChangeLog: ASCII text
/usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/COPYING: ASCII English text
/usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/INSTALL: ASCII English text
/usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/mondorescue-howto.html: HTML document text
/usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/mondorescue-howto.pdf: PDF document, version 1.4
/usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/NEWS: UTF-8 Unicode English text,
with very long lines
/usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/NEWS.old: UTF-8 Unicode English text
/usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/README: ASCII English text
/usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/TODO: ASCII English text
==> please convert to UTF-8
Keeping the original date/time of documentation file is probably a good idea
(no guidelines about this)
A simple solution :
# Convert to utf-8
for file in COPYING INSTALL NEWS README TODO AUTHORS Changelog; do
mv $file timestamp
iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 -o $file timestamp
touch -r timestamp $file
done
I guess the NEWS.old is not relevant?
- 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.
Good.
- SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
Good.
- SHOULD: The the package builds in mock.
Good on i386.
- SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
$ koji build --arch=x86_64 --scratch dist-f10 SRPMS/mondo-2.2.8-1.fc9.src.rpm
Uploading srpm: SRPMS/mondo-2.2.8-1.fc9.src.rpm
[====================================] 100% 00:00:55 1.91 MiB 35.31 KiB/sec
Created task: 1066356
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1066356
Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)...
1066356 build (dist-f10, mondo-2.2.8-1.fc9.src.rpm): open
(x86-2.fedora.phx.redhat.com)
1066357 buildArch (mondo-2.2.8-1.fc9.src.rpm, x86_64): open
(x86-4.fedora.phx.redhat.com)
1066357 buildArch (mondo-2.2.8-1.fc9.src.rpm, x86_64): open
(x86-4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> closed
0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed
1066356 build (dist-f10, mondo-2.2.8-1.fc9.src.rpm): open
(x86-2.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> closed
0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed
1066356 build (dist-f10, mondo-2.2.8-1.fc9.src.rpm) completed successfully
Good.
- SHOULD: The package functions as described.
Good.
- SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
NA.
- SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
NA.
- 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.
NA.
- 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.
Good.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list