[Bug 674007] Review Request: openni-primesense - PrimeSensor/Kinect Modules for OpenNI

Tue Feb 22 05:58:02 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=674007

Bug 674007 depends on bug 674006, which changed state.

Bug 674006 Summary: Review Request: openni - Library for human-machine Natural Interaction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674006

           What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|                            |ERRATA
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED

--- Comment #5 from Rich Mattes <richmattes at gmail.com> 2011-02-22 00:58:01 EST ---
Alright, here we go.  + is good, - is needs work, NA is not applicable.

MUST items:
[+]: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.

$ rpmlint openni-primesense.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/openni-primesense*
openni-primesense.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
openni-primesense-5.0.0.25-git894cea01.tar.gz
openni-primesense.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libXnDeviceSensorV2.so
openni-primesense.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libXnCore.so
openni-primesense.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libXnFormats.so
openni-primesense.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libXnDeviceFile.so
openni-primesense.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libXnDDK.so
openni-primesense.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary XnSensorServer
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

These are all OK.

[+]: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[+]: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. 
[+]: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+]: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
[+]: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[+]: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+]: The spec file must be written in American English. 
[+]: The spec file for the package must be legible. 
[+]: 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. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.

OK, instructions for creating snapshot are included.

[-]: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.

Mockbuild fails with error "cannot find jpeglib.h"  You need to add
BuildRequires: libjpeg-devel

[NA]: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines.
[NA]: The spec file must handle locales properly.
[+]: 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. 
[+]: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[NA]: 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.
[+]: 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.
[+]: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
[+]: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+]: Each package must consistently use macros. 
[+]: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
[NA]: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
[+]: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
[NA]: Header files must be in a -devel package. 
[NA]: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA]: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package. 
[NA]: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} 
[+]: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
[NA]: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. 
[+]: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+]: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD items:
[NA]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it.
[NA]: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. 
[-]: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+]: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[+]: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[+]: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and
left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[NA]: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
[NA]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this
is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A
reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed
in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
[+]: 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.
[-]: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't,
work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

There's no manpage for XnSensorServer. This could be added in the future if
appropriate, but is not necessary now.

All that's missing is a BuildRequires on libjpeg-devel.  Add this and I can
approve the package.

-- 
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.