[Bug 488563] Review Request: pure - The Pure programming language

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=488563





--- Comment #16 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>  2009-09-03 17:51:54 EDT ---
There's a few issues that need to be addressed.

- rpmlint output

$ rpmlint pure-0.32-0.1.fc12.src.rpm 
pure.src: E: invalid-spec-name
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint pure-0.32-0.1.fc12.x86_64.rpm 
pure.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpure.so
pure.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libpure.so.3.0
pure.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libpure.so.3.0
pure.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pure/pure_main.c
pure.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/pure/runtime.h
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
- specfile name matches the package base name
  why is the spec file named pure-svn.spec?
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
- latest version packaged
  There looks to be a 0.34 release upstream now
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
- upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  a svn release needs to document how to recreate the spec file. See the
geoclue package for an example.
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  tested using koji scratch build
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1653406
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
- binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+
does not use Prefix: /usr
n/a package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
- Package perserves timestamps on install
  As per guiddelines you could use "make install DESTDIR=%$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
INSTALL='install -p'" 
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
- header files should be in -devel
  Seems to be a few source files in the main package (plus an object file).
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
? libfoo.so must go in -devel
  Not sure if this is relevant here.
n/a devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages 
+ %install must start with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
+ the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin

-- 
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.