[Bug 684239] Review Request: valadoc - Documentation generator for Vala source
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Mar 14 17:28:30 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=684239
--- Comment #11 from Tim Lauridsen <tla at rasmil.dk> 2011-03-14 13:28:29 EDT ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr
[x] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
doesn't work.
[x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr.
[-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint valadoc-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm
================================================================================
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm
================================================================================
valadoc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvala ->
Libava, Liberal, liberal
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint valadoc-devel-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm
================================================================================
valadoc-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvala ->
Libava, Liberal, liberal
valadoc-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
================================================================================
valadoc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvala -> Libava,
Liberal, liberal
valadoc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: valadoc-0.2.1.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
================================================================================
This is ok
[!] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm :
/usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/devhelp/libdoclet.so
valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm :
/usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/gtkdoc/libdoclet.so
valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm :
/usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/html/libdoclet.so
[!] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : e87df86207b826dfe40076df0f0b4a02
MD5SUM upstream package : upstream source not found
This is a git snapshot, so this is ok
[x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[-] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!] : 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 is included in %doc.
[x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
[x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory
names.
[x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package does not genrate any conflict.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no static executables.
[x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] : MUST - Package installs properly.
[x] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x] : MUST - Package is not relocatable.
[x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8.
[x] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present.
[x] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make.
[!] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Source0: valadoc-%{version}.tar.gz (valadoc-%{version}.tar.gz)
[!] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL.
[!] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define.
%define glib_ver 2.25.16
%define gobj_ver 0.9.3
%define vala_ver 0.10.2
%define gee_ver 0.5
%define gdk_ver 2.0
[x] : 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.
[x] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm
-q --requires).
[?] : SHOULD - Package functions as described.
[x] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged.
[x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[!] : SHOULD - Man pages included for all executables.
[-] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x] : SHOULD - Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[!] : SHOULD - Description and summary sections in the package spec file
contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[-] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass.
[x] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
Issues:
[!] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm :
/usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/devhelp/libdoclet.so
valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm :
/usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/gtkdoc/libdoclet.so
valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm :
/usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/html/libdoclet.so
I'm a little unsure about these .so files, if they are not need at
runtime, then they should go into -devel
but if they are needed it is ok.
[!] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define.
%define glib_ver 2.25.16
%define gobj_ver 0.9.3
%define vala_ver 0.10.2
%define gee_ver 0.5
%define gdk_ver 2.0
use %global instead of %define
[!] : 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 is included in %doc.
You must not distrubute a GPL package without the license file
(COPYING), so you should add to your tarball and put it into
%doc
Add COPYING from upstream to %doc, replace %define with %global and I will
approve it
--
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