[Bug 483421] Review Request: apophysis-j - Fractal flame editor and creator, based on Apophysis

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jul 11 15:15:51 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=483421


Chris Tyler <chris at tylers.info> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |chris at tylers.info




--- Comment #1 from Chris Tyler <chris at tylers.info>  2009-07-11 11:15:49 EDT ---
Review results: [x] Bad [+] Good [na] Not applicable

    [x]  MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted in the review.[1]
    [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
    [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
    [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
    [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
    [x] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. ### GPLv2+ in spec file vs. GPL3 text included in source zip
    [+] 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.[4]
    [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
    [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
    [+] 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.
    [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture. [7]
    [na] 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. [8]
    [+] 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.
    [na] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.[9]
    [na] 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]
    [na] 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]
    [+] 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. [12]
    [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. [13]
    [+] 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. [14]
    [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
    [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
    [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
    [na] 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). [18]
    [+] 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. [18]
    [na] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
    [na] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
    [na] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [21]
    [na] 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. [19]
    [na] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [22]
    [na] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
    [+] 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. [23]
    [+] 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. [24]
    [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25]
    [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26]



SHOULD Items:
Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but
is not required to do.

    [na] 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.
[27]
    [na] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[28]
    [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [29]
    [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures. [30]
    [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
    [na] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [31]
    [na] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. [22]
    [na] 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. [21]
    [na] 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. [32] 

Question: Can't this package be noarch?
Note: This package is one version behind upstream.

-- 
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