[Bug 725228] Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jul 25 07:59:39 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=725228
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 #4 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2011-07-25 03:59:38 EDT ---
I had a deeper look at the package and it looks almost fine. There are yet a
few small things to be fixed:
- The URL given in Source0 is invalid. Change it to
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/edyuk/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Fix the file permissions that rpmlint complains about (see below)
* add chmod 644 README.txt to %prep
* add chmod 755 %{buildroot}%{_libdir} to %install
- Add qt-devel to the devel package (see comment #2).
- Drop Requires: pkgconfig as there's no .pc file in -devel.
- Replace $RPM_BUILD_ROOT with %{buildroot} to use macros consistently.
- If you don't plan to build the package for EPEL < 6 too, you can drop
rm -rf %{buildroot} from install. Otherwise, add a BuildRoot field and a
%clean section. These are still required for EPEL 4 and 5.
- You can drop option -p from "cp" as option -a already includes -p
implicitly.
- rpmlint doesn't like non-devel packages requiring a devel package. If the
designer subpackage is considered a devel package as well, this is probably
OK.
$ rpmlint *.rpm
qcodeedit.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/qcodeedit/2.2.3/qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
qcodeedit.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/libqcodeedit.so.1.0.0 0775L
qcodeedit.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/qcodeedit-2.2.3/README.txt
qcodeedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/qcodeedit-2.2.3/lib/.build
qcodeedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/qcodeedit-2.2.3/lib/.build
qcodeedit-designer.x86_64: E: devel-dependency qt-devel
qcodeedit-designer.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
The hidden files warnings can be ignored.
---------------------------------
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 according to source headers
[+] 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 qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz*
e2453d8e97c2592a870bbddd51876ad0 qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz
e2453d8e97c2592a870bbddd51876ad0 qcodeedit-2.2.3.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 ...
[+] 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: 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.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[X] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
- see rpmlint output
[X] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
- replace $RPM_BUILD_ROOT with %{buildroot}
[+] 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, 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, 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.
[+] 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:
[X] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[X] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[X] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
- no .pc file present => drop 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.
[+] 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