[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

Fri Aug 19 08:27:11 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=728649

--- Comment #3 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2011-08-19 04:27:10 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> [ BAD ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
> format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. ===> Needs to be
> renamed to airrac.spec

Right. However, the spec in the srpm is named correctly. It's just the name of
the separately linked spec that doesn't satisfy the guidelines.

> [ OK ] 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.

Please always add the checksums (md5sum, sha1sum,...) of both tarballs to your
reviews so that we can easily verify their identity.

> ===> I could not build rpm from provided srpm using 'mock -r fedora-15-x86_64
> --rebuild airrac-0.1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm' -- seems like problem with tex, sorry if
> it was my bad due to unapproriate usage of mock.

You ran mock correctly. ;) The package doesn't build because of the two missing
BRs python-devel and zeromq-devel.

> [ OK ] 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.

Not OK since BRs are missing, see above.

> [ OK ] 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.

Not OK: %{_datadir}/%{name}/ is unowned. Denis, add "%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/"
to the devel package to fix it.

> [ BAD ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
> removed in the spec if they are built. ===> I am not sure about that, are there
> any .la archives created? If not, consider it as OK.

There are no .la files created, so this is OK.

> [ BAD ] 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.
> ===> No license file included.

File COPYING is present in the base and doc package (see corresponding %files
section) ==> this is OK.

> [ BAD ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
> package using a fully versioned dependency. ===> doc package doesn't require
> the base package.

That's OK. Plain doc packages don't have to require the base package as there
are useful without it. 

=============================

$ rpmlint *.rpm
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
    - LGPLv2+ according to manpages

[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[X] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
    - missing BRs: python-devel, zeromq-devel

[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[X] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
    - %{_datadir}/%{name}/ is unowned

[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: If a package contains .so files with a suffix, then .so files without
suffix must go in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

EPEL <= 5 only:
[+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'

[.] 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.
[X] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] 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.
[+] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

-- 
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.