[Bug 447738] Review Request: libzypp - ZYpp is a Linux software management engine

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=447738





--- Comment #11 from Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray at gmail.com>  2008-10-22 01:12:54 EDT ---
MUST Items: 

xx - rpmlint is unclean on SRPM
    + [rishi at freebook SRPMS]$ rpmlint libzypp-4.27.24.1-1.fc9.src.rpm 
      libzypp.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line
10)
      1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
      [rishi at freebook SRPMS]$ 

OK - follows Naming Guidelines
OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec

xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
    + http://en.opensuse.org/Libzypp/ seems a better choice for the URL tag.
    + The Source0 tag should have a valid URL pointing to the upstream release
      tarball. This is an important requirement. In case upstream does not
      provide any such tarball, the Spec should have a comment above the
      Source0 tag describing how the sources were obtained to create the
      package. See:
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
    + Could you throw some light on why it is a problem to build the language
      bindings on Fedora? Is it because of the ruby-rpm breakage in Rawhide?
    + It is not really necessary to create %{_target_platform}. See:
      http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/cmake#Specfile_Usage
    + To preserve timestamps you could consider using:
      make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
    + You could consider shipping COPYING and TODO as %doc. What about the
      doc/persistency-concept.txt and Doxygen documentation?
    + There libzypp package does not own the %{_libdir}/zypp and
      %{_datadir}/zypp directories, which it should. See:
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories
    + Since the .desktop file has a MimeType key, and you are installing icons
      in %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor, you need to use the appropriate scriptlets.
      See:
     
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database
      and
     
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache
    + Some of the names in this package contain terms (like package-manager)
      which can be considered too generic. Has this been discussed elsewhere?

OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines
OK - License field meets actual license
OK - upstream license file included in %doc
OK - spec file uses American English
OK - spec file is legible

?? - sources might not match upstream sources
    + As noted earlier, please document how the sources were obtained. Place a
      comment above the Source0 tag for this.

xx - package does not build successfully
    + Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
/var/tmp/libzypp-4.27.24.1-1.fc9-root-rishi
      error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
         /usr/lib/zypp/zypp-query-pool
      The tools/registration/CMakeLists.txt file has hard-coded 'lib' as the
      destination of zypp-query-pool. On 64-bit systems it should be 'lib64'.
      You could use sed to replace 'lib' with the value of %{_lib}.

?? - ExcludeArch not needed

?? - missing build dependencies
    + Can not verify because package fails to build.

OK - no locales
OK - %post and %postun invoke ldconfig
OK - package is not relocatable

xx - missing dependency on package that creates directory
    + The libzypp package should have a 'Requires: hicolor-icon-theme', which
      owns the %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor directory. See:
     
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership
    + Similarly, the -devel subpackage should have a 'Requires: cmake'.

OK - no duplicates in %file
OK - file permissions set properly
OK - %clean present
OK - macros used consistently
OK - contains code and permissable content
OK - -doc is not needed
OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime
OK - header files in -devel
OK - no static libraries

xx - missing dependency for pkgconfig files
    + The -devel package should have a 'Requires: pkgconfig' since it provides
      a .pc file.

OK - library files without suffix in -devel
OK - -devel requires base package
OK - no libtool archives

xx - %{name}.desktop file not installed properly
    + You should use desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if the
      package installs a .desktop file and add a
      'BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils'. See:
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files

OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages
OK - buildroot correctly prepped
OK - all file names valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:

xx - upstream does not provide license text
    + It would be nice if upstream could provide the text of the GPLv2 in a
      separate file.

xx - no translations for description and summary

xx - package does not build in mock successfully
    + It needs sat-solver which is not yet in the repository.

?? - package builds on all supported architectures

?? - package functions as expected
    + Other components of the Zypper stack are needed to verify functionality.

xx - scriptlets are missing
    + As noted above, required scriptlets are missing.

OK - subpackages other than -devel are not needed
OK - pkgconfig files in -devel
OK - no file dependencies

-- 
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.