[Bug 641748] Review Request: libdigidocpp - Library for creating and validating BDoc and DDoc containers

Tue Oct 12 14:11:11 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=641748

--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-10-12 10:11:10 EDT ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is silent

кwork ~/Desktop: rpmlint libdigidocpp-* perl-digidoc-0.3.0-1.fc15.i686.rpm
php-digidoc-0.3.0-1.fc15.i686.rpm python-digidoc-0.3.0-1.fc15.i686.rpm 
libdigidocpp.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency libdigidoc(x86-32)
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/ESTEID-SK.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/ESTEID-SK 2007
OCSP 2010.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/conf.xsd
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/EID-SK 2007
OCSP.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/ESTEID-SK
2007.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/EID-SK.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/datatypes.dtd
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/KLASS3-SK
2010.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/TEST-SK.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/digidocpp/schema/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/EID-SK 2007.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/TEST-SK OCSP
2005.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/KLASS3-SK 2010
OCSP.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/XMLSchema.dtd
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/KLASS3-SK OCSP
2009.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/EID-SK 2007 OCSP
2010.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/XAdES.xsd
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/JUUR-SK.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/EID-SK OCSP
2006.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/KLASS3-SK.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/ESTEID-SK 2007
OCSP.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/ESTEID-SK OCSP
2005.crt
libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/digidocpp/schema/OpenDocument_manifest.xsd
libdigidocpp-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
perl-digidoc.i686: W: no-documentation
php-digidoc.i686: W: no-documentation
php-digidoc.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/php.d/digidoc.ini
python-digidoc.i686: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 28 warnings.
work ~/Desktop: 

* All messages about non-conffile-in-etc in package "libdigidocpp" should be
ignored - these files are not intended to be changed. In fact I believe that
they should be installed in %{_datadir} - consider it in the future releases.

* The message "non-conffile-in-etc" from php-digidoc should be ignored too - it
contains library name for dlopening (I suppose) and also should not be changed.

* The messsage "explicit-lib-dependency" really worries me - could you, please,
explain why you need to explicitly add this dependency?

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines. As for
language-specific bindings, you reasonably added both lang-%{name} and
%{name}-lang provides so no issues here.

+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.

+/- The package should meet the Packaging Guidelines but there is something
else wwhich worries me - you filtered list of automatic provides. Could you
explain the reasons?

+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (LGPLv2
or later). Also look at my note regarding bundled library.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum libdigidocpp-0.3.0.tar.bz2*
3147e8b657507db4d30d20b46a864c673b0bcd41b8e5530bdec6171dbfccf116 
libdigidocpp-0.3.0.tar.bz2
3147e8b657507db4d30d20b46a864c673b0bcd41b8e5530bdec6171dbfccf116 
libdigidocpp-0.3.0.tar.bz2.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.

- The package bundles copy of minizip library - src/minizip. Please, remove it
or explain why it cant be done easily (heavy patched fork, as one of possible
explanations). This also add another one license

0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.

+/- The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package. No pkgconfig
runtime requirement was added so this could be a blocker if you plan to use
this library on some EL branches.

+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Ok, almost done. Here is a task list for you:
* Explain why you need to explicitly added dependecy on libdigidoc(x86-32).
* Explain why you filtered list of automatic provides for language-specific
bindings?
* Remove (or explain why it wouldn't be easy) bundled minizip.

Not a blockers:
* Consider storing immutable data (certificates and layout descriptions) in
%{_datadir} instead of %{_sysconfdir}
* Don't forget to add dependency on pkgconfig if you are planning to build on
EL-5.

-- 
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.