[Bug 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Oct 12 14:27:22 UTC 2012
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535
--- Comment #7 from Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce at redhat.com> ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Darryl,
>
> I've updated the package to reflect your findings. However, In [23] I don't
> think /usr/lib{64}/libvirt-designer-1.0.so is provided by any other package
> but -devel.
If you build and then look inside of the RPMs you'll see that they're both
creating the same symlink to the sofile.
>
> The new set of URLs has prefix
> http://fedorapeople.org/~mprivozn/libvirt-designer/2/ that's:
>
> SPEC file:
> http://fedorapeople.org/~mprivozn/libvirt-designer/2/libvirt-designer.spec
> SRPM:
> http://fedorapeople.org/~mprivozn/libvirt-designer/2/libvirt-designer-0.0.1-
> 1.fc19.src.rpm
Thank you for the updates. Here's my feedback on this:
LEGEND: X=Met, !=Not met, ?=Not a blocker but should be fixed
=============================================================
[X] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
mcpierce at mcpierce-laptop:review $ rpmlint *rpm
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[X] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
[X] 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 .
The %changelog should be more explicit. Have it read something like:
Initial packaging of libvirt-designer.
It should also have a second entry and updated release number for this second
round of reviews:
---8<[snip]---
%changelog
* Fri Oct 12 2012 Michal Privoznik <mprivozn at redhat.com> 0.0.1-2
- (List the specific changes made to the package for this round of reviews)
* Tue Oct 09 2012 Michal Privoznik <mprivozn at redhat.com> 0.0.1-1
- Initial packaging of libvirt-designer
---8<[snip]---
This way the reviewer can look at the changelog to see what specifically should
be different in this round of reviews.
The next update that addresses the issues I mention here should be 0.0.1-3.
[X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
[X] 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]
[X] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[X] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[X] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this
task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream
URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for
how to deal with this.
[X] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
Since this is only for F18+, be sure when it finally is approved to only
request F18+ git modules.
[!] 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.
The version dependency changed for libvirt-gobject-devel to 0.1.3, which is not
available in F17 or F18. Since F18 is the next release the package should
minimally be buildable against it. It's critical to keep things consistent
between rounds of reviews.
Please don't change dependencies mid-package review: revert back to the
previous build dependency of 0.0.9 and only change such things after the review
is finished.
[X] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[X] 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]
[X] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[X] 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]
[X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
[X] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. [15]
[?] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
The top of this specfile has conditional macros for working with F15+ and RHEL.
The former macros needs to be deleted since this package is only targeting
F18+, and the latter needs to be deleted since RHEL packaging is a totally
separate beast from Fedora.
[X] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[!] 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). [18]
There are documentation files in the -devel package. Please put these into a
-doc package.
[X] 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. [18]
[X] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[19]
[!] 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. [23]
Both libvirt-designer-devel and libvirt-designer-libs provide
/usr/lib{64}/libvirt-designer-1.0.so.0.0.1
>From libvirt-designer-devel:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 Oct 12 10:07
/usr/lib64/libvirt-designer-1.0.so -> libvirt-designer-1.0.so.0.0.1
from libvirt-designer-libs:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 Oct 12 10:07
/usr/lib64/libvirt-designer-1.0.so.0 -> libvirt-designer-1.0.so.0.0.1
This needs to be fixed.
[X] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list