[Bug 693493] Review Request: thunderbird-lightning - The calendar extension to Thunderbird

Wed Apr 6 13:53:06 UTC 2011

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=693493

--- Comment #6 from Matej Cepl <mcepl at redhat.com> 2011-04-06 09:53:04 EDT ---
+ BAD : rpmlint is silent on both source and binary package.
It isn't.
bradford:build $ rpmlint -i thunderbird-lightning-1.0-0.39.b3pre.fc14.src.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/thunderbird-lightning-*
thunderbird-lightning.src: W: strange-permission thunderbird-mozconfig-branded
0755L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

thunderbird-lightning.src: W: strange-permission find-external-requires 0755L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

thunderbird-lightning.src:19: W: macro-in-comment %define
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.

thunderbird-lightning.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0:
thunderbird-version.patch
A patch is included in your package but was not applied. Refer to the patches
documentation to see what's wrong.

thunderbird-lightning.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch6:
mozilla-build-s390.patch
A patch is applied inside an %ifarch block. Patches must be applied on all
architectures and may contain necessary configure and/or code patch to be
effective only on a given arch.

thunderbird-lightning-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
This debuginfo package contains no files.  This is often a sign of binaries
being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, rpmbuild not being
able to strip the binaries, the package actually being a noarch one but
erratically packaged as arch dependent, or something else.  Verify what the
case is, and if there's no way to produce useful debuginfo out of it, disable
creation of the debuginfo package.

thunderbird-lightning.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{3550f703-e582-4d05-9a08-453d09bdfdc6}/{e2fda1a4-762b-4020-b5ad-a41df1933103}/calendar-js/calFreeBusyService.js
This text file has executable bits set or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks a shebang and cannot thus be executed.  If the file is
meant to be an executable script, add the shebang, otherwise remove the
executable bits or move the file elsewhere.

thunderbird-lightning.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{3550f703-e582-4d05-9a08-453d09bdfdc6}/{e2fda1a4-762b-4020-b5ad-a41df1933103}/calendar-js/calAlarmMonitor.js
This text file has executable bits set or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks a shebang and cannot thus be executed.  If the file is
meant to be an executable script, add the shebang, otherwise remove the
executable bits or move the file elsewhere.

3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings.
bradford:build $ 

Errors must be fixed, warnings should be avoided as well if possible (and I
don't see any which couldn't).

+ GOOD: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
+ GOOD: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines .
+ GOOD: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ GOOD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ GOOD: LICENSE file is in %doc.
+ GOOD: The spec file is written in American English.
+ GOOD: The spec file for the package is legible.
- GOOD: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
SHA256: 8b499ec3d81d3242b0cc2de27effb1891a07259adf7e5e4c06150f8c9f5254c2
+ GOOD: The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
Built on my Fedora15/x86_64
+ GOOD: builds on all architectures
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2978202
+ GOOD: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. (builds in koji)
+ GOOD: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
  No locales provided.
+ GOOD: %post and %postun scripts
no scripts
+ GOOD: not relocatable
+ GOOD: A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ GOOD: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ GOOD: Permissions on files must be set properly.
+ GOOD: Each package have a %clean section.
+ GOOD: Each package consistently use macros.
+ GOOD: The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ GOOD: -doc subpackage provided. No documentation
+ GOOD: Files registered in %doc does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ GOOD: No header files.
+ GOOD: No static libraries.
+ GOOD: No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ GOOD: No .so file
+ GOOD: No -devel subpackage.
+ GOOD: No .la libtool archives.
+ GOOD: Packages does not contain separate GUI applications.
+ GOOD: Packages does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
+ BAD : Runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
It doesn't.
+ GOOD: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
+ GOOD: Includes license text.

Please fix the above indicated problems.

-- 
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.