[Bug 509160] Review Request: mine_detector – a mine-finding game

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=509160

--- Comment #10 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler at dwheeler.com> 2010-01-25 18:25:07 EST ---
Using http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines

    *  MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.[1]

$ cd ~/rpmbuild/
$ rpmlint SPECS/mine_detector.spec SRPMS/mine_detector-6.0-2.fc12.src.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/mine_detector-*
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

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

OK.  There's controversy about this because the package name includes "_", but
the upstream name includes "_", and I interpret the guidelines as saying that's
okay in this case.  See comment 1, comment 2, and comment 9.

    * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
OK

    * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines

OK.

This uses %{GNAT_optflags} for the option flags.  This macro is defined in
/etc/rpm/macros.gnat, and is derived from %{optflags}, so that's fine.


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

ISSUE: Need to confirm that you've asked upstream to include a separate file
with the license in a future edition.

The license of the code (GPLv2) is fine.

    * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]

OK.  The "License:" says GPLv2, and the GPLv2 is specifically included in every
source file as a comment.  See comment 9.

    * 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]

ISSUE: The package did NOT include a separate license file, and you've ADDED
one.  I don't think that meets this requirement.  If there isn't one, then
don't add one.  Instead, just ask upstream to (in the future) add one.

    * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK

    * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
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.

WARNING: The URL given here has an UNCHANGING version value:
 http://pragmada.x10hosting.com/mine_detector_6.0_src.zip
I recommend doing this instead:
 http://pragmada.x10hosting.com/mine_detector_%{version}_src.zip
This way, updating the RPM spec is far easier.  Otherwise, it'll be easy to
change the "version:" value, but not change the URL: entry and get the wrong
source file.

The files do match:
be4f2655162cf35208492117456cd479  mine_detector_6.0_src.zip
be4f2655162cf35208492117456cd479 
/home/rpmbuilder/rpmbuild/SOURCES/mine_detector_6.0_src.zip

    * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]

OK. x86_64 tested.

    * 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]

NA.  Don't know of any bad arch.  Koji will detect.


    * 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.

Used mock to check this:
  mock --rebuild SRPMS/mine_detector-6.0-2.fc12.src.rpm 

    * 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.  /locale/ is not used.

    * 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: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
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. [12]
NA

    * 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. [13]
OK

    * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. [14]
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. [15]
OK

    * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]
OK

    * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]
OK. %{buildroot} style.

    * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]
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). [19]
NA

    * 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. [19]
OK

    * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20]
NA

    * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21]
NA

    * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). [22]
    * 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. [20]
NA

    * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [23]
NA

    * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[21]
NA

    * 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.
[24]
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. [25]
OK

    * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26]
OK

    * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]
OK


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

    * 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.
[28]

ISSUE: Email sent, not clear that it met this SHOULD.

    * SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[29]

OK.  Done in one case!

    * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [30]
OK.  It does.

    * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures. [31]
Not done.  Koji will do that.

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

OK.  I did run it briefly, it displayed and responded reasonably to a few
clicks.

    * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [32]
NA

    * SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. [23]
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. [22]
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. [33]
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.[34]

ISSUE. It does NOT include a man page.  Have you queried 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.