[Bug 722187] Review Request: usbredir - USB network redirection protocol libraries

Fri Jul 15 10:54:12 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=722187

Alon Levy <alevy at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Alon Levy <alevy at redhat.com> 2011-07-15 06:54:11 EDT ---
ACCEPT.

Here is the complete MUST and SHOULD. not passing (only in two shoulds) is
indicated with a '-' with an appropriate comment. Comments are added to some of
the '+' items as well.

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

MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]

usbredir.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usb -> USB, sub, us
usbredir.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libusb -> libelous
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

+ (the spelling-errors are bogus, usb is part of 'usb-host' and should be
uncapitalized since it is a term in the protocol definition, and libusb is a
library name)

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
+

MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
+

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
There are two LGPL packages and one GPL package, all match the marking in the
spec.
+

MUST: 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.[4]
two LGPL packages - usbredirhost, usbredirparser
 carry the COPYING.LIB file (LGPL) in their %doc
one GPL package - usbredirserver
 carries the COPYING (GPL file in its %doc

+

MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
+

MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
+

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. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.

+

md5sum matches.

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]

MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
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.

a single requirement, no exceptions.
+

MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]

no locale in package
+

MUST: 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. [10]

post and postrun do ldconfig for the main package, the only one with shared
library files.
+

MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
+

MUST: 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]

+ (no request and not relocatable)

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. [13]
+ (no directory created or owned by package)

MUST: 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)[14]
+

MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. [15]

checked by going over the files in the resulting rpms, two so's and one
executable, all with executable permissions, the rest
with non executable permissions.

+

MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
+

MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
+

MUST: 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]
+

MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present. [18]
+

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
+

MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
+ (emptily)

MUST: 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. [19]
+

MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]

server and devel require exact main package (containing libs).

+

MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.[20]
+

MUST: 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.
[22]

+ (emptily)

MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23]

+ (no directories owned by this package)

MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
+

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. [25]

+ (upstream includes license texts)

SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26]

no translations available.

SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27]

+ (after installing libusb1 1.0.9 from
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=252763 using the
instructions in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/MockTricks)

SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures. [28]

- Tested just x64

SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.

+ ~
Tested with the usbredirtestclient provided in the source package,
usbredirserver works (and it is actually linked to both libs that are
distributed).

SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29]

+ (no scriptlets)

SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency. [21]

+ (server requires the main package)

SHOULD: 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. [30]

+ (pc are in devel package)

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. [31]

+ (emptily)

SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32]

- no man pages.

-- 
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.