[Bug 692541] Review Request: rep-gtk - GTK+ binding for librep Lisp environment

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=692541

--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2011-04-13 06:26:08 EDT ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is almost silent:

work ~/Desktop: rpmlint rep-gtk-*
rep-gtk.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) librep -> lib rep, lib-rep,
libretto
rep-gtk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librep -> lib rep,
lib-rep, libretto
rep-gtk-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librep -> lib
rep, lib-rep, libretto
rep-gtk-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
work ~/Desktop: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2
or later).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum rep-gtk-0.90.5.tar.bz2*
c4ce0d5c560f0846461abd623255342c503b19f3c2d2e32377c62d4765dfac1a 
rep-gtk-0.90.5.tar.bz2
c4ce0d5c560f0846461abd623255342c503b19f3c2d2e32377c62d4765dfac1a 
rep-gtk-0.90.5.tar.bz2.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.

0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. You
should remove %post and %postun targets entirely - they are useless.

+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.

- The package MUST own all directories that it creates. nfortunately I think
that there is some lack of agreement between librep and rep-gtk about directory
structure.

This is the directory layout from librep (only interesting ones listed):

/usr/lib64/rep
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/data
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/i18n
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/io
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/io/db
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/lang
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/util
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/vm

And this the full directory and files layout from rep-gtk (except docs):

/usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/gui
/usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/gui/gtk-2
/usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/gui/gtk-2/gtk.so


You see - librep uses versioned directory structure while rep-gtk is not, thus
the directory "/usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu" from rep-gtk package
becomes unowned.

Btw I really don't see any reason on using versioned directory structure in
librep. Technically it's ok (disregard rep-gtk for now) but it doesn't have any
sense.

+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary runtime
requirement is picked up automatically.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

So, please, fix the situation with directories and remove %post and %postun
sections and I'll continue.

-- 
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.