[Bug 459979] Review Request: mlt - Toolkit for broadcasters, video editors, media players, transcoders

Wed Aug 27 01:51:35 UTC 2008

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=459979

Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |loupgaroublond at gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond at gmail.com>  2008-08-26 21:51:34 EDT ---
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.

mlt-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
mlt-devel.i386: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/mlt/libmltgtk2.so

Not sure about the first one, no clue what the second one means, but it is
probably a problem in the compilation process of the package itself.

- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .

CHECK

- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
.

CHECK 

- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .

BuildRoot needs to follow the guidelines. The following value is recommended.
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)

- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .

CHECK

- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.

CHECK

- 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.

CHECK

- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.

CHECK

- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).

CHECK - for some values of legible ;) (next time use better handwriting)

- 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.

No url provided.
MD5 matches with the source package from sourceforge, nonetheless.

- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.

Tested on i386, works.

- 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 needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next
to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla
entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the
comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and
replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc ,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64

Not tested on any other architectures.

- 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.

CHECK

- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.

Not applicable (?)

- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
An example of the correct syntax for this is:

%post -p /sbin/ldconfig

%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

CHECK

- 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.

Not Applicable

- 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. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.

CHECK (but someone who does the actual review, please double check)

- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.

CHECK

- 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.

CHECK

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

CHECK

- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .

CHECK

- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines .

CHECK (code)

- MUST: Large documentation files should 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)

Not Applicable

- 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.

CHECK

- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.

CHECK

- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.

Not applicable

- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).

Missing (belongs in the %package section for the devel package.

- 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.

CHECK

- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}

Missing the %{release}

- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.

CHECK

- 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. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of
the Packaging Guidelines . 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.

Not applicable

- 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.

CHECK

- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.

CHECK

- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

CHECK

SHOULD Items:

- 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.

N/A

- SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.

Missing (how do you do this actually?)

- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See
MockTricks for details on how to do this.

Not tested.

- SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.

Not tested

- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.

It's a library, not going to compile other packages just to test right now.

- SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.

N/A

- SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.

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.

CHECK

- 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. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines for
further information. 

CHECK

-- 
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.