[Bug 661615] Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Jan 23 20:16:52 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=661615

--- Comment #3 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> 2011-01-23 15:16:51 EST ---
A few minor issues:

- license matches the actual package license
  in bamf-0.2.64/lib/libbamf bamf-tab.c bamf-tab.h bamf-view-private.h are
GPLv2+ so I think the overall library should be GPLv2+ 

- package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  tested using koji scratch build
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2738391

? non -devel packages should require fully versioned base
I don't believe this is needed as the base package is a library and should be
pulled in by the library. The only reason I could see is there might be issues
ig soname isn't  bumped for every release

+ rpmlint output

rpmlint bamf.spec bamf-0.2.64-1.fc15.src.rpm bamf-0.2.64-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
bamf-devel-0.2.64-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm bamf-daemon-0.2.64-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
bamf.spec:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
bamf.spec:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
bamf.spec:37: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
bamf.src:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
bamf.src:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
bamf.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
- license matches the actual package license
  in bamf-0.2.64/lib/libbamf bamf-tab.c bamf-tab.h bamf-view-private.h are
GPLv2+ so I think the overall library should be GPLv2+ 
+ latest version packaged
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  ba433497562e4702a7cf93001491981a  bamf-0.2.64.tar.gz
- package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  tested using koji scratch build
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2738391
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
+ binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+
does not use Prefix: /usr
n/a package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
+ Package perserves timestamps on install
+ Permissions on files must be set properly 
+ %defattr line
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package runtime 
+ header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
+ packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
+ libfoo.so must go in -devel
+ devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream to include it
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
? non -devel packages should require fully versioned base
  I don't believe this is needed as the base package is a library and should be
pulled in by the library. The only reason I could see is there might be issues
ig soname isn't  bumped for every release 
+ pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
n/a Package should have man files

-- 
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.



More information about the package-review mailing list