[Bug 468285] Review Request: gobject-introspection

Sat Oct 25 17:02:01 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=468285

--- Comment #2 from Owen Taylor <otaylor at redhat.com>  2008-10-25 13:02:00 EDT ---
Look pretty good. 

 - Some minor specfile issues
 - License doesn't match contents
 - Fails in mock because of autogen.sh usage

See details below. Also would suggest Summary and Description would be better
if the word "Metadata" was removed from each (no replacement necessary.)

[*] OK or not applicable
[X] Problem
[-] Not checked

Musts
======
[*] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.

$ rpmlint  gobject-introspection.spec 
gobject-introspection.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1,
tab: line 6)
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Looks clean.

[*] The package must be named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines .
[*] 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
.
[X] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .

I would suggest using the python_sitelib magic from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python

%install is supposed to remove the buildroot first - see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines

[*] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
[X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.

The license tag for the package is LGPLv2+, the COPYING file in
gobject-introspection is GPL3, some of the source files are GPLv2+, some
LGPLv2+.

[*] 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.

(See above)

[*] The spec file must be written in American English.
[*] 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/).
[X] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.

SVN snapshot, which is OK, but source URL is a weird non-real URL

Source0:       
http://svn.gnome.org/svn/gobject-introspection/gobject-introspection-%{version}-20081023-r801.tar.gz

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL has some suggestion

[*] The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[*] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. 
[*] 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 spec file MUST handle locales properly. 
[*] 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 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.
[*] 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.
[*] A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[*] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[*] Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
[*] Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
[*] The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines .
[*] 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)
[*] 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.
[*] Header files must be in a -devel package.
[*] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[*] Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
[*] 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.
[*] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
[*] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed
in the spec.
[*] 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.
[*] 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.
[X] At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (
or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.
See above
[*] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

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.
[*] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[X] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks
for details on how to do this.

Spec file runs autogen.sh which requires gnome-common, which is not in
BuildRequires. (And presumably many other packages like autoconf, gnome-common
is just the first one.) autogen.sh should not be necessary for a 'make
distcheck' output?

[-] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package
should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[*] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and
left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[*] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency.
[*] 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.
[*] 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.

-- 
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.