[Bug 548694] Review Request: python-rpmfluff - Lightweight way of building RPMs, and sabotaging them

Tue Jan 5 22:22:06 UTC 2010

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=548694

--- Comment #4 from James Laska <jlaska at redhat.com>  2010-01-05 17:22:05 EDT ---
I've reviewed the package according to the review guidelines (see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines).  Results are posted
below.  Please address the outstanding issues noted by "NOT OK".

# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
# the review.[1]
OK (see attached patch)

    $ rpmlint python-rpmfluff-0.3-2.fc12.src.rpm
    1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

    $ rpmlint python-rpmfluff-0.3-2.fc12.noarch.rpm
    1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

    $ rpmlint python-rpmfluff.spec
    0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

# 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 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. [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]
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.
NOT OK

    $ curl https://fedorahosted.org/releases/r/p/rpmfluff/rpmfluff-0.3.tar.bz2
| md5sum
    b349770877d43d9fd71d53ece24a4165

    $ rpm -ivh
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/r/p/rpmfluff/python-rpmfluff-0.3-1.fc10.src.rpm
       1:python-rpmfluff     ########################################### [100%]
    $ md5sum /tmp/jlaska-rpm/SOURCES/rpmfluff-0.3.tar.bz2
    db40cf13beb5241835d9256a90e998be 
/tmp/jlaska-rpm/SOURCES/rpmfluff-0.3.tar.bz2

# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
# least one primary architecture. [7]
OK (tested on x86_64)

# 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]
N/A

# 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

If you wish to change to using python distutils, you may wish to add
BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel

# 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]
N/A

# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
# considered a blocker. [12]
N/A

# 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]
OK - with included patch

# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
# %files listings. [14]
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. [15]
OK - with included patch to change 0644 for rpmfluff.py

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

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

# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]
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). [19]
N/A

# 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]
OK

# 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]
N/A

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

# 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]
N/A

# 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]
N/A

# MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
# (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26]
OK

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

# 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]
OK

# 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]
OK (using koji scratch build)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1904152

# SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
# supported architectures. [31]
OK (noarch)

# SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
# package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
OK (tested using rpmguard)

# 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] 
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.