[Bug 828993] Review Request: l3afpad - Simple text editor
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Oct 15 14:40:14 UTC 2012
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines (GPLv2+).
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)". 2 files have unknown
license.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9.tar.xz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.src.rpm
l3afpad-debuginfo-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
l3afpad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary l3afpad
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint l3afpad l3afpad-debuginfo
l3afpad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary l3afpad
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
l3afpad-debuginfo-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
l3afpad = 0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17
l3afpad(x86-64) = 0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17
mimehandler(text/plain)
l3afpad-debuginfo-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
l3afpad-debuginfo = 0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17
l3afpad-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17
MD5-sum check
-------------
http://www.calno.com/l3afpad/l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9.tar.xz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
c08cceaa3c957e235ec9d698f93524d86ef68670681cf204552e2f5fd632f957
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
c08cceaa3c957e235ec9d698f93524d86ef68670681cf204552e2f5fd632f957
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24
Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 828993
So there is only one minor item: The package does not preserve timestamps
during %install. Instead of
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} use
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INATALL='install -p'
And a suggestion:
Instead of patching the desktop file for a missing semicolon, just use
desktop-file-install, it will add the semicolon automatically:
desktop-file-install \
--delete-original \
--dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \
%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
The package is APPROVED, but before I sponsor you, I'd like you to take part in
other reviews and do at least one complete informal review.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list