[Bug 494073] Review Request: libvmime - Powerful library for MIME messages and Internet messaging services
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Apr 14 14:11:52 UTC 2009
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=494073
--- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de> 2009-04-14 10:11:51 EDT ---
- Why do you %doc INSTALL? Doesn't make much sense to me.
- To me it looks like the $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are not honored, following seems to
work for me so far and uses also parallel builds:
> export EXTRA_CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
> %configure
> make %{?_smp_mflags}
- Is there really any need to ship the static libraries? So shouldn't link
anything in Fedora anyway dynamically?
- Group "Applications/System"? Wouldn't "System Environment/Libraries" be a
bit better?
- Regarding the documentation: Did you have a closer look to it, whether that
one is usable and it's not just a waste of disk space?
- Source0 should be like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL;
use: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
[ DONE ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/libvmime-*
libvmime-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libvmime-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$
-> Okay and accepted according to comment #2
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[ ?? ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
-> See above.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
[ OK ] 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
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ OK ] 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.
-> 23feb9cff7ba3961c0693926e21448cf libvmime-0.9.0.tar.bz2
-> 23feb9cff7ba3961c0693926e21448cf libvmime-0.9.0.tar.bz2.1
-> 02215e1d8ea758f486c32e7bff63a04f71a9b736 libvmime-0.9.0.tar.bz2
-> 02215e1d8ea758f486c32e7bff63a04f71a9b736 libvmime-0.9.0.tar.bz2.1
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[ N/A ] 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 MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[ ?? ] 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.
-> See above (documentation related).
[ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
[ OK ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[ N/A ] 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. [11]
[ OK ] 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.
[ OK ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[ OK ] 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.
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ ?? ] MUST: Large documentation files must 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).
-> See above (documentation related).
[ ?? ] 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.
-> See above (documentation related).
[ OK ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ OK ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
-> Is the -static subpackage really needed and wanted?
[ OK ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
[ OK ] 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.
[ OK ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[ OK ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.
[ N/A ] 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. 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.
[ OK ] 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.
[ OK ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[ OK ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Maybe let us short discuss about the documentation, that's the only real point
of the review, where some time needs to be spend for now. Rest of my points is
(or should) be trivial so far.
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list