[Bug 526451] Review Request: crunchyfrog - A multi-engine SQL client and database front-end

Sun Oct 11 21:28:01 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=526451

--- Comment #5 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan at hubbitus.info>  2009-10-11 17:27:59 EDT ---
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.[1]
$ rpmlint *
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[pasha at x-www 1]$ ls *
crunchyfrog-0.4.0-2.fc12.src.rpm  crunchyfrog.spec

noarch:
crunchyfrog-0.4.0-2.fc11.noarch.rpm

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[-] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
You must include in %doc files:
AUTHORS, CHANGES, COPYING, INSTALL, README (if you want also TODO and PKG-INFO)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation

[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
Mostly, but not all.
utils/msgfmt.py written by another author Martin v. L.wis and license is
unknown. I think we can't distribute it (and usual it is part of python-tools).
In utils directory also present other files with different authors, some have
Free licenses and we can distribute them, like utils/builder/docbook.py:
:Author: Ollie Rutherfurd
:Revision: $Revision$
:Date: $Date$
:Copyright: This module has been placed in the public domain.
but some other license is unknown, there are: utils/builder/dbbuilder.py,
utils/builder/gcwiki.py, utils/command/* as I undartand is part of sphinx by
Sebastian Wiesner and Licensed under MIT.

extras/plugins/sqlformat/sqlformat/printsql.py Authors Peter Bengtsson, Andi
Albrecht also without license mention.
cf/sqlparse/dialects.py have header:
# This module is part of python-sqlparse and is released under
# the BSD License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php.

I think there all files must be completely revisited...

[-] 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]
COPYING not included.

[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[-] 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.
New version 0.4.1 available and old url
http://crunchyfrog.googlecode.com/files/crunchyfrog-0.4.0.tar.gz is broken now.
Please update.

[-] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1741089

It is filed on EL5 - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1741221

[n/a] 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. [8]

[+] 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.

[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]

[n/a] 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]

[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]

[n/a] 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. [12]

[+] 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. [13]

[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. [14]

[+] 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. [15]

[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]

[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]

[-] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]
See remarks before about licensing. Each included file must be checked. Many
files with unknown license.

[=] 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). [19]
It is not strongly required but consider place doc in separate sub-package. It
is greater than 400Kb.

[+] 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. [19]

[n/a] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20]

[n/a] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21]

[n/a] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). [22]

[n/a] 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. [20]

[n/a] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [23]

[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[21]

[-] 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.
[24]
You shouldn't apply vendor for destkop-file-install:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage

[+] 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. [25]

[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]

[+] 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.
[28]

[n/a] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[29]

[-] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [30]
It built on F11 and rawhide, but filed on El5 -
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1741221
Do you plan maintain it on epel?

[-] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
It is even not installed due unresolved dependency:
  --> Missing Dependency: gnome-python-desktop2 is needed by package
crunchyfrog-0.4.0-2.fc11.noarch (/crunchyfrog-0.4.0-2.fc11.noarch)
Error: Missing Dependency: gnome-python-desktop2 is needed by package
crunchyfrog-0.4.0-2.fc11.noarch (/crunchyfrog-0.4.0-2.fc11.noarch)
 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
 You could try running: package-cleanup --problems
                        package-cleanup --dupes
                        rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
Please note, I even enable rawhide repository and still can't find package
gnome-python-desktop2. What is it? This request also do not have any
dependencies...

[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [32]

[n/a] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. [23]

[n/a] 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. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [22]

[n/a] 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. [33]

-- 
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.