[Bug 608319] Review Request: memaker - An avatar creator
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jul 28 19:05:36 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=608319
Mario Blättermann <mariobl at freenet.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Mario Blättermann <mariobl at freenet.de> 2011-07-28 15:05:31 EDT ---
Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3236193
$ rpmlint -i -v *
memaker.noarch: I: checking
memaker.noarch: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/memaker (timeout 10
seconds)
memaker.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/memaker/themes/glyphFace/Nose/..svg
The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal, and delete
it from the package if not.
memaker.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary memaker
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
memaker.src: I: checking
memaker.src: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/memaker (timeout 10 seconds)
memaker.src: W: invalid-url Source0: memaker-20100110-bzr.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
memaker.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: memaker-20100110-bzr.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
/home/mariobl/Arbeitsfläche/memaker/memaker-20100110-1.fc16.src/memaker.spec:
W: invalid-url Source0: memaker-20100110-bzr.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
2 packages and 2 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
For the »hidden« file, see comment #7.
Of course, the source package cannot be named as an URL. That's why, no real
issues.
---------------------------------
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 *
c64b256c500f9eae6f78a03332087553 memaker-20100110-bzr.tar.gz
a432d5d0f771ccd2edf48f860249b25a memaker-20100110-bzr.tar.gz.packaged
The checksums doesn't match. I assume it is due to differing algorithms
in gzip, which is a common problem with other packages which are based
on a VCS checkout, too.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- See Koji build above.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] 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.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] 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: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] 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: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Works properly, given the current development state.
[+] 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 ...
[.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
Currently no man page available.
----------------
PACKAGE APPROVED
----------------
For Fedora (not for EPEL) you may remove the %defattr and %clean macros and the
BuildRoot definition.
--
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