[Bug 539388] Review Request: xmlrpc-epi - An implementation of the XML-RPC protocol in C.
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Jan 31 17:49:04 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=539388
Thomas Kowaliczek <linuxdonald at linuxdonald.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |needinfo?
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Kowaliczek <linuxdonald at linuxdonald.de> 2010-01-31 12:48:57 EST ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
rpmlint xmlrpc-epi-0.54.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
xmlrpc-epi-debuginfo-0.54.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
xmlrpc-epi-devel-0.54.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
xmlrpc-epi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
okay
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
okay
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
okay
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
okay
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
is it not the BSD license?
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.
okay
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
okay
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
okay
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.
okay
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
okay
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.
okay
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.
okay
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
okay
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.
okay
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
okay
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.
okay
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.
okay
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
okay
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.
okay
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
okay
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
okay
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
okay
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).
okay
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.
okay
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
okay
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
okay
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
okay
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.
okay
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
it is Requires: xmlrpc-epi = %{version}-%{release} but it must be Requires:
%{name} = %{version}-%{release}
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
okay
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.
okay
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.
okay
MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
okay
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
okay
I only find this problem
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
it is Requires: xmlrpc-epi = %{version}-%{release} but it must be Requires:
%{name} = %{version}-%{release}
and that (but it don´t must be fixed it´s only an warning.:
rpmlint xmlrpc-epi-0.54.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
xmlrpc-epi-debuginfo-0.54.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
xmlrpc-epi-devel-0.54.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
xmlrpc-epi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
--
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