[Bug 566407] Review Request: perl-Number-Bytes-Human - Convert byte count to human readable format
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Mar 7 12:01:57 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=566407
Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |steve.traylen at cern.ch
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> 2010-03-07 07:01:47 EST ---
Review: perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-1
Date: March 7th 2010
Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2036564
* MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted in the review.
$ rpmlint perl-Number-Bytes-Human.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-1.fc14.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
perl-Number-Bytes-Human.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter
-> formatted, for matter, for-matter
perl-Number-Bytes-Human.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US du -> dew,
doe, Du
perl-Number-Bytes-Human.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US df -> sf,
ff, dd
perl-Number-Bytes-Human.src: W: non-coherent-filename
perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-1.fc14.src.rpm
perl-Number-Bytes-Human-0.07-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
perl-Number-Bytes-Human.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter
perl-Number-Bytes-Human.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US du ->
dew, doe, Du
perl-Number-Bytes-Human.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US df ->
sf, ff, dd
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
MAYBE: I'm a bit confused by the non-coherent-filename error? You could
try and remove the word "formatter" as it does not exist.
* MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
MAYBE: I've been advised before by people more in the know before to change
PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot}
to
INSTALLDIR=%{buildroot}
* MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name},
in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
YES.
* MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
YES.
* MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
YES. GPL+ or Artistic
* MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
YES. Declares itself to be "perl"
* 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.
YES. No file is included.
* MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
NO. rpmlint error on 'filterer'.
* MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
YES.
* 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.
YES.
8e5d230709bfc5e919f5f47ed3cb5bdb Number-Bytes-Human-0.07.tar.gz
8e5d230709bfc5e919f5f47ed3cb5bdb ../SOURCES/Number-Bytes-Human-0.07.tar.gz
* MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
YES. See koji builds
* 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.
YES: It compiles anyway.
* 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.
YES. They seem sane
* MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is
strictly forbidden.
YES: no Locales.
* 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.
YES: no libs.
* MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
YES: No system libs.
* 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.
YES: Not relocatable.
* 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.
YES:
* MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the
spec file's %files listings.
YES:
* 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.
YES:
* MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
YES:
* MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
YES:
* MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
YES:
* 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).
YES:
* 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.
YES:
* MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
YES:
* MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
YES:
* MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
YES:
* 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.
YES:
* MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require
the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
YES:
* MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.[21]
YES:
* 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.
YES:
* 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.
YES:
* MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
YES:
* MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
YES:
* 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.
YES: A license file should be added but it I notice there is a comment
allready in the README file so upstream plans to do it.
* SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages,
if available.
YES: None available.
* SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
YES: see koji.
* SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on
all supported architectures.
YES:
* SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Not tested.
* SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This
is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine
sanity.
YES: no srcipts.
* SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
YES: no devel.
* 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.
YES: no pkgconfig file.
* 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.
YES:
* SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make
sense.
So in summary, just the INSTALLDIR comment and the use of the word
"formatter" which is not a word.
Also the "non-coherent-filename" just confuses me, it looks to be
an rpmlint bug but I'll check some more.
Steve
--
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