[Bug 624023] Review Request: reprepro - Debian package repository producer

Sun Oct 31 12:10:30 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=624023

--- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> 2010-10-31 08:10:28 EDT ---
Spec and srpm don't match, spec is at -4 while package is still -3. As there is
no -4 package in the repo I have taken -3 with the spec of -4.

REVIEW FOR f0df6898fc563cff1ef694fbc772842a  reprepro-4.2.0-3.fc12.src.rpm

MUST Items:
FIX - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm
reprepro.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udeb -> deb, u deb, udder
reprepro.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dsc -> dc, sc, desc
reprepro.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US indices -> induces,
indies, indicts
reprepro.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Utilities
reprepro.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udeb -> deb, u deb,
udder
reprepro.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dsc -> dc, sc, desc
reprepro.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US indices -> induces,
indies, indicts
reprepro.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Utilities
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

Can be ignored: spelling-error
Needs to be fixed: non-standard-group Development/Utilities ->
Development/Tools

OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv2
only)
OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license
FIX - MUST: license file included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
OK - MUST: spec is legible
OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5
72605173cccdbc805f3037824064895d
OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries.
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates (none)
OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
TBD - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
(no docs included!)
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
N/A - MUST: library files that end in .so are in the -devel package.
N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - Should: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:
FIX - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
OK - SHOULD: functions as described.
N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane (no scriptlets used).
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg
OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin
OK - SHOULD: package contains man pages for binaries/scripts.

Other items:
OK - latest stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Compiler flags ok
OK - Debuginfo complete
OK - SHOULD: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
N/A - SHOULD: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.

TODO items:
- Fix the items marked with FIX

- Use the full length of 80 characters for the description

- Requires db4 and gpgme are not needed, I doubt bzip2 is. Libraries should not
have explicit requires.

- Add AUTHORS, COPYING, ChangeLog, README, NEWS, TODO, docs/FAQ,
docs/manual.html, docs/short-howto, to %doc

- You also want might want to include the examples from the docs folder, but
make sure to remove the executable bits.

- Do not specify the manpage with extension gz, we might very well switch to
another compression method.

- Timestamp of the source tarball does not match (at least in -3 srpm), please
download it again, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps

- Changelog doesn't follow any of the allowed formats, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs

-- 
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.