[Bug 508318] Review Request: mutter - A window manager based on metacity and clutter
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jul 16 22:12:08 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=508318
Owen Taylor <otaylor at redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on|508525 |512260
--- Comment #12 from Owen Taylor <otaylor at redhat.com> 2009-07-16 18:12:06 EDT ---
[OK] * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted in the review.[1]
ON SRPM:
rpmlint /tmp/mutter-2.27.0-0.2.20090626gita13dec3.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
On RPM:
mutter.i586: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.27.0-0.2
['2.27.0-0.2.20090626gita13dec3.fc11', '2.27.0-0.2.20090626gita13dec3']
Doesn't matter, we'll have real tarballs soon anyways.
mutter.i586: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libmutter-private.so.0.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.0
None of rpmlint's damn business (libmutter-private has meta_exit, meta_fatal
utility functions in it.)
mutter.i586: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/mutter.schemas
OK.
[OK] * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
[OK] * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[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. [3]
[OK] * 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.[4]
[OK] * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[OK] * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[XX] * 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.
Source: should be
http://download.gnome.org/sources/mutter/2.27/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
[XX] * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7]
Looks like the file list is out of sync with recent mutter changes; removing
files that are no longer in Mutter and adding .po file handling, it seems to
build OK.
[NA] * 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.
[XX] * 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.
>From reading the configure.in, missing BuildRequires I can find:
gir-repository-devel
libXcomposite-devel
libSM-devel
[XX] * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.[9]
Not OK, no handling of .po files.
[OK] * 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. [10]
[OK] * 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.
[XX] * 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. [12]
File list has: %{_libdir}/mutter/plugins/clutter/*.so and doesn't own any of
the parent directories. (Current mutter removes the clutter/ part of this).
Probably should just have %{_datadir}/mutter in the file list.
Needs to Requires: control-center-filesystem for
/usr/share/gnome/wm-properties/
[OK] * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the
spec file's %files listings. [13]
[OK] * 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. [14]
[OK] * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section
[OK] * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[OK] * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[OK] * MUST: Large documentation files must 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). [18]
[OK] * 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. [18]
[OK] * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
[NA] * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
[OK] * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [21]
[OK] * 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. [19]
[OK] * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [22]
[OK] * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
[XX] * 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. 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. [23]
Should be using desktop-file-install (the metacity package has
desktop-file-install usage commented out, with a comment that the .desktop file
is invalid, but mutter.desktop seems fine)
[OK] * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
[OK] * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25]
[OK] * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26]
[NA] * 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.
[27]
[NA] * SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[28]
[NT] * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[29]
[NT] * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures. [30]
[??] * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Got a white screen in a quick test of 'mutter --replace', but it's a slightly
old version of Mutter, so didn't investigate further.
[OK] * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This
is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [31]
[OK] * SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. [22]
[OK] * 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.
[OK] * 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. [32]
Packaging guidelines:
Other notes:
- Should not run autogen.sh (and some of the BuildRequires: thus aren't
needed: libotool, automake, autoconf, gnome-common0)
- Although it makes the specfile more complex, I think the check in
metacity.spec:
SHOULD_HAVE_DEFINED="HAVE_SM HAVE_XINERAMA HAVE_XFREE_XINERAMA HAVE_SHAPE
HAVE_RANDR HAVE_STARTUP_NOTIFICATION"
for I in $SHOULD_HAVE_DEFINED; do
if ! grep -q "define $I" config.h; then
echo "$I was not defined in config.h"
grep "$I" config.h
exit 1
else
echo "$I was defined as it should have been"
grep "$I" config.h
fi
done
Is probably worthwhile moving over. (And add HAVE_COMPOSITE_EXTENSION)
- From the metacity.rpm, looking at the patches:
Patch0: default-theme.patch
Not needed - we share schemas with metacity
# http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=558723
Patch4: stop-spamming-xsession-errors.patch
# http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135056
Patch5: dnd-keynav.patch
# http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584723
Patch6: no-lame-dialog.patch
All affect Mutter, but I'll take care of getting them fixed upstream, so
let's not include them here.
- You should
export GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTALL=1
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
unset GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTALL
Or it will try to install the schemas into the system database on the build
system.
- I removed dependency of this bug on gjs (not needed for Mutter by itself),
added dependency on getting clutter built with gobject-introspection support
- Here's my stab at a good %description
%description
Mutter is a window and compositing manager that displays and manages
your desktop via OpenGL. Mutter combines a sophisticated display engine
using the Clutter toolkit with solid window-management logic inherited
from the Metacity window manager.
While Mutter can be used stand-alone, it is primarily intended to be
used as the display core of a larger system such as gnome-shell or
Moblin. For this reason, Mutter is very extensible via plugins, which
are used both to add fancy visual effects and to rework the window
management behaviors to meet the needs of the environment.
A bit too much about Mutter technically and not enough about why you want to
install Mutter, but should do. (And will most likely be sitting their unchanged
in 10 years no matter what else has happened in the meantime....)
- And a %description for -devel:
Header files and libraries for developing Mutter plugins. Also includes
utilities for testing Metacity/Mutter themes.
And finally:
- While I was writing this, I was simultaneously getting mutter to 'make
distcheck' succesfully. I've now uploaded a 2.27.1 tarball. It should appear at
http://download.gnome.org/sources/mutter/2.27/
once ftp.gnome.org finishes syncing.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list