[Bug 651591] Review Request: partiwm - partitioning window manager and related tools

Wed Nov 10 02:47:30 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=651591

--- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf at gmail.com> 2010-11-09 21:47:29 EST ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1]
[x]  Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]  Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]  Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names.
[x]  Package consistently uses macros.
[x]  Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]  PreReq is not used.
[x]  Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2]
[x]  Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of
%install.
[-]  Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't
work.
[x]  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[-]  The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]  Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]  Rpmlint output is silent.

% lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb
partiwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Parti -> Patti, Marti,
Parch
partiwm.src:54: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT build
install
partiwm.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
partiwm.src:16: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 16, tab: line 4)
partiwm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: partiwm-20101109.tar.bz2
partiwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Parti -> Patti, Marti,
Parch
partiwm.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.6-0.1.20101109
['0.0.6-1.20101109.fc14', '0.0.6-1.20101109']
partiwm.x86_64: E: no-binary
partiwm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary parti-repl
partiwm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary parti
wimpiggy.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) compositing -> composting,
com positing, com-positing
wimpiggy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compositing ->
composting, com positing, com-positing
wimpiggy.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/wimpiggy/lowlevel/bindings.so
bindings.so()(64bit)
wimpiggy.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/wimpiggy/lowlevel/bindings.so 0775L
xpra.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/xpra/wait_for_x_server.so
wait_for_x_server.so()(64bit)
xpra.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/xpra/wait_for_x_server.so 0775L
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 13 warnings.

The tab/spaces should be cleaned up. The Release: needs to be pre-release
versioned (%changelog is correct). Not sure why the %build section is removing
the (non-existent) build and install directories.

[x]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

Pedantry: GPLv2+.

[x]  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 is included in %doc.
[x]  License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[3,4]
[x]  Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     MD5SUM this package     : 
     MD5SUM upstream package : 

What revision was the snapshot of? Please use %{hgdate}hg%{hgrev} for the
Release tag.

[x]  Compiler flags are appropriate.
[x]  %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-]  ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]  Package must own all directories that it creates.

I usually put a trailing '/' after directories to explicitly mark them as
directories for others' sake.

[!]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

Should %{python_sitearch} be owned by partiwm? Other arch-ed python packages
don't.

[x]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]  Each %files section contains %defattr.
[x]  No %config files under /usr.
[x]  %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [5]

Waived as window managers don't really get started in this fashion. Does it get
added to gdm/kdm's menus?

[x]  Package contains a valid .desktop file.
[x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-]  Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]  File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]  Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]  Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]  Package contains no bundled libraries.
[-]  Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-]  Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[-]  Package contains no static executables.
[-]  Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-]  Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]  Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-]  Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]  Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]  Package does not genrate any conflict.
[x]  Package does not contains kernel modules.
[x]  Package is not relocatable.
[x]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
[x]  Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]  Package installs properly.
[x]  Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6]

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[-]  Package functions as described.
[x]  Latest version is packaged.
[x]  Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]  If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-]  Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]  SourceX is a working URL.

Snapshot. See md5sum entry above to allow the specific revision to be
recreated.

[x]  SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]  Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]  %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]  Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]  Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]  Dist tag is present.
[!]  Spec use %global instead of %define.

hgdate is using %define.

[-]  Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]  The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-]  No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]  Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[-]  File based requires are sane.
[!]  Man pages included for all executables.

Upstream should be contacted.

[x]  Uses parallel make.
[x]  Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.

I didn't need the card32 patch for my attempt, but I was using the 0.0.6
release tarball, not a snapshot.

(Copied from above for convenience)

=== Issues ===
1. The tab/spaces should be cleaned up
2. The Release: needs to be pre-release versioned (%changelog is correct)
3. Not sure why the %build section is removing the (non-existent) build and
install directories
4. What revision was the snapshot of? Please use %{hgdate}hg%{hgrev} for the
Release tag
5. Should %{python_sitearch} be owned by partiwm? Other arch-ed python packages
don't
6. Waived as window managers don't really get started in this fashion. Does it
get added to gdm/kdm's menus?
7. hgdate is using %define where %global should be used

=== Final Notes ===
1. NEWS should be shipped
2. Pedantry: GPLv2+
3. I usually put a trailing '/' after directories to explicitly mark them as
directories for others' sake

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files
[6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

-- 
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.