[Bug 1178912] Review Request: cairo-dock-plug-ins - Plug-ins files for Cairo-Dock

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912



--- Comment #11 from Jan Pokorný <jpokorny at redhat.com> ---
Only MUST items for now:

> ===== MUST items =====
> 
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>      Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
>      attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

All unversioned, but in private subdir (plugins).

> [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
> [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
> [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
> 
> Generic:
> [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
>      supported primary architecture.
>      Note: Using prebuilt packages
> [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>      other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>      Guidelines.

Hopefully all infringing files (graphics) were pointed out.

> [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
>      "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No
>      copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
>      address)", "GPL (v3 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or
>      later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v3)". 18 files have unknown
>      license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mock/build-10/cairo-
>      dock-plug-ins-3.4.0-10.fc/cairo-dock-plug-ins/licensecheck.txt
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

Technically, this is not true: only cairo-dock-plug-ins binary RPM contains
the %license files, other subpackages are not.

> [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.
>      Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.

See "Package is licensed with an open-source compatible [...]"

> [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
> [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
> [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>      Provides are present.
> [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>      (~1MB) or number of files.
>      Note: Documentation size is 215040 bytes in 28 files.

Personally I would be considering whether demo code shouldn't be placed in
extra -devel package, but seems fine also under the root package.

> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
>      Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>      beginning of %install.
> [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
> [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> [x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
> [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
>      work.
> [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
> [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
> [x]: Package is not relocatable.
> [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
>      in the spec URL.
> [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
>      %{name}.spec.
> [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
> [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
> 
> Python:
> [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
> [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
>      provide egg info.
> [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
> [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
> [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component