[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option

Sat Apr 10 06:47:27 UTC 2010

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=578290

--- Comment #4 from Klaus Grue <grue at diku.dk> 2010-04-10 02:47:17 EDT ---
Here is the pre-review. It is my first pre-review.
M. Tasaka has promised to take a look at it.
There are quite a number of open points in it where
I don't know what to do.

I have built the source RPM for x86_64 and i386.
Running rpmlint on the binary packages causes no complaints.
Below I go through
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
step by step (rather mechanical - sorry - but I hope that
is a reasonable way to start).

Below, "you" means "the packager".

For each comment I make below I have added one of the
following attributes after the comment:
ACTION   The packager must do or say something
QUESTION I am in doubt what to do here
OK       Selfexplanatory

MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output
should be posted in the review.

> I should mention that if you run rpmlint on the SRPM,
> you will get several warnings about spelling errors
> in the Swedish description, referring to words from
> the English description.  From what I can tell, this
> is because of some bug in rpm, see bug 578299.

I only get two erros from rpmlint:

> mj.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
> You should clean $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the %clean
> section and in the beginning of the %install section.
> Use "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT". Some rpm configurations
> do this automatically; if your package is only going
> to be built in such configurations, you can ignore
> this warning for the section(s) where your rpm
> takes care of it.

> mj.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
> The BuildRoot tag isn't used in your spec. It must
> be used in order to allow building the package as
> non root on some systems. For some rpm versions (e.g.
> rpm.org >= 4.6) the BuildRoot tag is not necessary
> in specfiles and is ignored by rpmbuild; if your
> package is only going to be built with such rpm
> versions you can ignore this warning.

Could you take a look at that?

[[NOTE: "you" means the packager in the line above,
i.e. Göran Uddeborg, not Mamoru Tasaka]]

ACTION

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

Naming guidelines are met.

But 'mj' is a *very* short name. There are only
26^2=676 package names which consist of two, small
letters, so I suppose such names are reserved.

The name matches the upstream tar-ball
(mj-1.10-src.tar.gz). Do you think upstream would
be willing to change name to e.g. mahjong-1.10
or mahjongg-1.10? Those names do not appear to be
taken yet. In particular, /usr/bin/mahjongg belongs
to gnome-games-2.26.3-1.fc11.x86_64.

ACTION

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

OK

MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

The application is written in C but uses neither
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS nor %{optflags}

ACTION

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
says that one should use desktop-file-install (mj.spec does that)
and should also BuildRequire desktop-file-utils (mj.spec doesn't)

ACTION

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
says that you should use %global instead of %define, unless
you really need only locally defined submacros within other
macro definitions (a very rare case). mj.spec contains
two instances of %define. Is that needed?

ACTION

Consider using
  cp -p ../tiles-v1/tong* .
rather than
  cp ../tiles-v1/tong* .
c.f. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps

ACTION

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

License in upstream tar file:
> The programs are distributed under the GNU General
> Public License, version 2, or at your discretion
> any later version.

Part of the upstream tar file, however, is non-GNU.
The mj.spec file says:

# The bundled tiles have a non-commercial-use license.  So instead we
# use GPL tiles from kdegames instead.  The solution was suggested by
# Tom 'spot' Callaway in:
# http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2010-February/001109.html

As mentioned in tiles-v1/README it is questionable whether or
not the bundled tiles have a non-commercial-use license. Thus
it is questionable whether or not the tiles can be GNU GPL.

Tom 'spot' Callaway says the tiles are not GNU GPL.

Using GPL tiles from kdegames as indicated above seems like a
good idea. That guarantees that the tiles used are GPL.

But then I suppose the tiles-v1/ directory should be removed from
the source package since otherwise the source package will contain
tiles which are not GNU GPL.

ACTION

The upstream .c and .h files refer to the LICENSE file for license
information except lazyfixed.c, lazyfixed.h, vlazyfixed.c, and
vlazyfixed.h which refer to
  GNU Lesser General Public License (any version).
Is that a problem?

QUESTION

In upstream .c and .h files, the author claims moral rights.
Does that have any effect? I found something here:
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/contributor_agreement.jsp#r_3

3.
Q:
The SCA requires that I agree not to assert my "moral rights." What are moral
rights?
A:
Moral rights are additional rights of the creators of copyrighted works
recognized in some jurisdictions, and intended to protect the relationship
between an artist and his or her work. These rights remain in place even after
ownership of the work is shared or transferred. Moral rights typically only
apply to visual or artistic works, and not to utilitarian works such as
software. They may prohibit the alteration or mutilation of a work, may protect
the author's right of attribution or anonymous publication, and in general
govern the artistic integrity of a creative work. It would be unusual for moral
rights to apply to an open-source contribution, but in the event they do and
you live in a jurisdiction that recognizes moral rights, when you sign the SCA
you agree not to assert them with respect to your contributions.

QUESTION

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

Spec file license:
> License:     GPLv2+

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.

File LICENSE is included in %doc

OK

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

It is. Description and summary are provided in Swedish also.
The Swedish description and summary matches the American
English ones.

OK

MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.

It is.

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.

Downloaded from
http://mahjong.julianbradfield.org/Source/mj-1.10-src.tar.gz:
f9bacf9fd6743d5e3a2fd86863607ce2  mj-1.10-src.tar.gz

In source rpm:
f9bacf9fd6743d5e3a2fd86863607ce2  mj-1.10-src.tar.gz

OK

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

Compiles and builds successfully for fc11/x86_64 and fc11/i586.

OK

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.

I am unable to test PPC. What shall I do?

QUESTION

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.

Must be OK since it builds in a chroot jail using mock.

OK

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

The spec file does not handle locales at all.

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.

The RPM package defines no shared libraries.

OK

MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.

OK

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. [12]

%prep replaces non-GNU-GPL tiles with tiles found at
/usr/share/kde4/apps/kmahjongglib/tilesets/default.svgz
Apart from that, /usr is neither hardcoded in mj.spec
nor in the Makefiles.

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.

The package uses these directories without creating them:

Directory                            Owner

/usr/bin/                            filesystem-2.4.21-1.fc11.x86_64
/usr/share/applications/             filesystem-2.4.21-1.fc11.x86_64
/usr/share/doc/                      filesystem-2.4.21-1.fc11.x86_64
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/ hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch
/usr/share/man/man1/                 policycoreutils-2.0.62-12.14.fc11.x86_64

How can I find out if one needs to require
hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch and
policycoreutils-2.0.62-12.14.fc11.x86_64 ?

QUESTION

MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.

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.

rpm -qlv mj
-rwxr-xr-x root root /usr/bin/mj-player
-rwxr-xr-x root root /usr/bin/mj-server
-rwxr-xr-x root root /usr/bin/xmj
-rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/applications/mj.desktop
drwxr-xr-x root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10
-rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/CHANGES
-rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/ChangeLog
-rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/LICENCE
-rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/README
-rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/rules.txt
-rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/use.txt
-rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/mj.png
-r--r--r-- root root /usr/share/man/man1/mj-player.1.gz
-r--r--r-- root root /usr/share/man/man1/mj-server.1.gz
-r--r--r-- root root /usr/share/man/man1/xmj.1.gz

Why are man pages not user writable?

ACTION

MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.

As far as I can see, mj.spec uses macros consistently.
Is that what is asked for here? Is there something
particular to look for?

Is this a question of using either $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
or %{optflags}? In that case, mj.spec uses the
%{optflags} style consistently and '$RPM' does not
occur anywhere in mj.spec.

QUESTION

MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.

OK

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).

Documentation consists of
25653 bytes rules.txt
41244 bytes use.txt
22311 bytes xmj.1.gz

OK

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.

OK

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

The package installs no .h files.

OK

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

The package installs no static libraries.

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.

The package installs no .so files.

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.

OK

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).

It does not. As mentioned previously, rpmlint complains about it.

ACTION

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

OK

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 source package has a LICENSE file. The LICENSE file contains
license info followed by the GNU GPL license.

OK

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

Description and summary is available in English and Swedish. The Mahjong
program itself seems to support English only.

OK

SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

Done for x86_64 and i386.

OK

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

I cannot test PPC.

QUESTION

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

The x86_64 version seems to run fine.

OK

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

OK

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

There are no subpackages.

OK

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.

There are no such files.

OK

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.

The package only BuildRequire packages.

OK

SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

Man pages are included for all three binaries (xmj, mj-player, and mj-server).

OK

-- 
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.