[Bug 581197] Review Request: zita-resampler - Fast, high-quality sample rate conversion library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Apr 16 19:21:35 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=581197
David Cornette <rpm at davidcornette.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rpm at davidcornette.com
--- Comment #2 from David Cornette <rpm at davidcornette.com> 2010-04-16 15:21:33 EDT ---
Since I am not yet a fedora packager, this is an informal review. I am
probably being more verbose than normal.
There is one issue that should be addressed. This package does not build
properly on architectures other than i686 and x86_64.
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
$ rpmlint zita-resampler-0.1.1-1.fc12.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
GOOD
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
Name contains only permitted ASCII characters. Name matches tarball.
Separators are hyphens. Base name is unique. Spec file name is %{name}.spec.
Version is numeric, and matches uptstream. Release is 1%{?dist}. Case matches
upstream. Not renaming a package. Documentation is not large. Not a font or
addon package.
GOOD
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
GOOD
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
GOOD
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
Package is licensed as GPLv2+, all source files appropriately marked.
GOOD
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
License field matches actual license GPLv2+.
GOOD
# 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]
COPYING file is included in %doc.
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
GOOD
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
GOOD
# 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.
$ wget
http://www.kokkinizita.net/linuxaudio/downloads/zita-resampler-0.1.1.tar.bz2
$ md5sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/zita-resampler-0.1.1.tar.bz2
zita-resampler-0.1.1.tar.bz2
cbf0da8b7ace593082a5f01eed828109 rpmbuild/SOURCES/zita-resampler-0.1.1.tar.bz2
cbf0da8b7ace593082a5f01eed828109 zita-resampler-0.1.1.tar.bz2
GOOD
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Builds on x86_64.
GOOD
# 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.
Build fails on ppc and ppc64. The upstream makefile uses the following to set
the path to install libraries to /usr/libppc or /usr/libppc64, but the %files
section is looking for them to be in %{_libdir}, which is just /usr/lib or
/usr/lib64. arm, s390x, and sparc were not tested, but it appears this issue
would occur on these arches as well.
BAD
# 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.
GOOD
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
No locales used by package.
GOOD
# 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.
Both sections call ldconfig.
GOOD
# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
GOOD
# 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.
Not relocatable.
GOOD
# 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.
GOOD
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
GOOD
# 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.
%defattr(-,root,root,-) used
GOOD
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
GOOD
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
GOOD
# 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).
Documents are not large.
GOOD
# 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.
GOOD
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
One header file, which is in the -devel package.
GOOD
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
No static libraries
GOOD
# 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.
.so file is in the -devel package.
GOOD
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
-devel package has the necessary Requires:.
GOOD
# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
No .la archives.
GOOD
# 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.
Not a GUI application.
GOOD
# 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.
GOOD
# MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
GOOD
# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
GOOD
--
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