[Bug 705319] Review Request: sombok - Unicode Text Segmentation Package

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=705319

Veeti Paananen <veeti.paananen at rojekti.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |veeti.paananen at rojekti.fi

--- Comment #2 from Veeti Paananen <veeti.paananen at rojekti.fi> 2011-07-26 12:06:38 EDT ---
rpmlint output:

[veeti at veeti-pc result]$ rpmlint *.rpm
sombok.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/sombok-2.0.5/COPYING
sombok-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

- Inform upstream about the FSF address.

--------------------

Informal review:

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

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK

MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK

MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. NEEDS WORK:

- The devel package's requirement for the base package needs to be in the
format "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}".
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package)

- The %files section could be a bit more explicit, since this package only
contains a few files. For example, just use "libsombok.so.*" for the library
files, "sombok*.h" for the headers.

- I don't think that the README.ja_JP file should be included in %doc.

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

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK

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. OK

MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK

MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK

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. OK:

[veeti at veeti-pc tmp]$ md5sum sombok*
af78a04e07998aedc12a841fa2b168d2  sombok-srpm.tar.gz
af78a04e07998aedc12a841fa2b168d2  sombok-upstream.tar.gz

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

MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. OK

MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. N/A

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. OK

MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK

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. N/A

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. OK

MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. OK

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

MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK

MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK

MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A

MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. OK

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK

MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A

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. OK

MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}. NEEDS WORK (as mentioned above).

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

- find is unnecessary since there's only one .la file.

MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
N/A

MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. OK

MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK

EPEL:

rpm in EPEL5 and below does not automatically create dependencies for pkgconfig
files. Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must Requires: pkgconfig (for
directory ownership and usability). NEEDS WORK


---------

Issues:

- The devel package's requirement for the base package needs to be in the
format "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}".
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package)

- The %files section could be a bit more explicit, since this package only
contains a few files. For example, just use "libsombok.so.*" for the library
files, "sombok*.h" for the headers.

- I don't think that the README.ja_JP file should be included in %doc.

- find is unnecessary since there's only one .la file.

- devel package needs to require pkgconfig for EPEL5.

-- 
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.