[Bug 496635] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-mdb - Mono Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop

Wed Jun 10 00:55:37 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=496635

--- Comment #44 from Mauricio Henriquez <buhochileno at gmail.com>  2009-06-09 20:55:36 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
> in the review:
> monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: E: no-binary
> monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: W: no-documentation
> monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:47: E: hardcoded-library-path in
> %{_prefix}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/DebuggerClient.dll*
> monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:49: E: hardcoded-library-path in
> %{_prefix}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/DebuggerServer.exe*
> monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:51: E: hardcoded-library-path in
> %{buildroot}/usr/lib
> monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel.i586: E: description-line-too-long The
> monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel package contains development files for
> monodevelop-debugger-mdb.
> monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel.i586: W: no-documentation
> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings.
> 
> * hardcoded paths are only the old location - OK
> * no-documentation: no docs available
> * no-binary, only-non-bin...: mono bins are not recognized
> 
> * TODO: shorten description line
> 
> 
> - 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
> OK
> 
> - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
> 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: 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.
> OK
> 
> - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
> OK
> 
> - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
> OK
> 
> - 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.
> OK - b60e9a0783f294aaa137c78e32c4f6be - md5 of the original tarball
> 
> - MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
> least one primary architecture.
> OK - i386
> 
> - 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 MUST have a bug filed in
> bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
> that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
> corresponding ExcludeArch line.
> OK - bug in x86_64 and mono-debugger not available on other architectures
> 
> - 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.
> OK
> 
> - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
> 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.
> OK
> 
> - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
> %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
> OK
> 
> - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
> OK
> 
> - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
> OK
> 
> - 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.
> OK
> 
> - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
> (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
> OK
> 
> - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
> OK
> 
> ############################################################
> 
> One thing left before you can upload the package in CVS:
> 
> - Please shorten the Description line. (Simply place the %{name} variable in a 
> new line.
you mean just this?:

%description
%{name} 

> 
> This is the only thing left. It's only minor, so I'm going to approve this 
> package right now. Thank you for the hard work. Do you already have been 
> sponsored?
Think not, Toshio help me at the beggining but think that no one officially
sponsor me...
> 
> More info for the next steps: 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_Sponsored
reading...
> 
> APPROVED  
Great!!!, uuhhuuu, finally my first package...what a ride ;-)

Thanks Paul..

-- 
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.