[Bug 666409] Review Request: t4k_common - Library for Tux4Kids applications
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jul 18 16:58:35 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=666409
Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |martin.gieseking at uos.de
Flag| |fedora-review-
--- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2011-07-18 12:58:32 EDT ---
Here's the formal review. Sorry for the delay, I've been pretty busy lately.
The package looks allmost fine. Here are a few things that need some attention:
- The .pc file is packaged twice. Drop it from the base package.
- As the files generated by doxygen contain devel docs, move them to the
devel package.
- I recommend to set the proper file permissions in %install and use
%defattr(-,root,root,-) in %files
- drop doxygen/html/installdox as it's not required
- Please use the original CamelCase spelling from upstream in the
%description: TuxMath, TuxType, Tux4Kids
$ rpmlint *.rpm
t4k_common.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath -> tux math,
tux-math, bathmat
t4k_common.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype -> tux type,
tux-type, Teletype
t4k_common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath -> tux math,
tux-math, bathmat
t4k_common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype -> tux type,
tux-type, Teletype
t4k_common.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libt4k_common.so.0.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
t4k_common.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/t4k_common.pc
t4k_common.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/t4k_common-0.0.3/html/installdox /usr/bin/perl
t4k_common-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath -> tux
math, tux-math, bathmat
t4k_common-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype -> tux
type, tux-type, Teletype
t4k_common-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 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.
- GPLv3+
[+] 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.
$ md5sum t4k_common-0.0.3.tar.gz*
28ad0818aa79d701fd33019e756340f8 t4k_common-0.0.3.tar.gz
28ad0818aa79d701fd33019e756340f8 t4k_common-0.0.3.tar.gz.1
[+] 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, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[+] 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, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
- the .pc file is packaged twice (base and devel package)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[.] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] 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: .so files with a 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
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] 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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list