[Bug 510969] Review Request: valide - New Package IDE for vala

Tue Jul 14 16:04:46 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=510969

--- Comment #38 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2009-07-14 12:04:44 EDT ---
- You still have to have intltool in the BuildRequires, otherwise the package
won't build in mock.

- I suggest changing the Summary of the main package to
"An integrated development environment (IDE) for the Vala programming language"

- The summary of -devel should be
"Support for developing plugins for Val(a)IDE"
(drop the "the")

- A couple of spelling mistakes in the %description, it should read
"Val(a)IDE is an Integrated Development Environment for the Vala programming
language."
and that of -devel
"Val(a)IDE is an Integrated Development Environment for the Vala programming
language.

This package allows you to develop plugins that add new functionality
to Val(a)IDE."

- You are missing
 %posttrans
 gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets

**

rpmlint output:
valide.src:112: W: macro-in-%changelog _bindir
valide.src:118: W: macro-in-%changelog global
valide.src:122: W: macro-in-%changelog vala_version
valide.src:123: W: macro-in-%changelog vala_version
valide.src:125: W: macro-in-%changelog post
valide.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 122, tab: line 1)
valide.src: E: specfile-error error: Macro %variable has empty body
valide.x86_64: E: devel-dependency vala-devel
valide.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/valide/licenses/None
valide-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 7 warnings.

- When you refer to macros in changelog put another % in front of it so that
rpm doesn't evaluate them, e.g. %%{_bindir}. That takes care of 1-5 and 7.
Remove the tabbing in the changelog entry to get rid of 6.

- The three last rpmlint errors and warnings are expected.

MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK

MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
- Check the suggestions above.

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. NEEDSWORK
- Why are you using an SVN version and not the stable release tarball?
- If you really have to use the SVN version, you have to look at
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control
to mark the spec file accordingly.

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK

MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
- Headers seem to be generated during build, so their time stamps will differ
from build to build.

MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK

MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
- I suggest using
 %{_libdir}/libvalide-*.so.*
in %files of the main package and
 %{_libdir}/libvalide-*.so
in the %files of the -devel package to avoid trouble when the soname changes.
Same thing with
 %{_includedir}/valide-0.5/
you can use
 %{_includedir}/valide-*/
instead.

MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
- You could alphabetize the %doc listing, it's faster to check that way.

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
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 then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

-- 
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.