[Bug 748180] Review Request: dbus-sharp-glib - C# bindings for D-Bus glib main loop integration

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Nov 13 13:23:14 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=748180

--- Comment #7 from Theodore Lee <theo148 at gmail.com> 2011-11-13 08:23:14 EST ---
Right, I guess I'll take a shot at helping out with a review (just informal at
this point, unless Peter wants to hand it over). This is my first package
review aside from the practice reviews I did when applying to be a packager,
and I don't have much experience with the Mono guidelines, so apologies for any
mistakes.

MUST Items
==========

OK - rpmlint must be run on all rpms

$ rpmlint dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
dbus-sharp-glib-devel-0.5.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: E: no-binary
dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
dbus-sharp-glib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

After install:
$ rpmlint dbus-sharp-glib
dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: E: no-binary
dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

These errors seem to be the usual ones seen with mono packages, nothing
significant.

OK - Package must meet naming guidelines
OK - Spec file name must match base package name
OK - Package must meet packaging guidelines
OK - Package must meet licensing guidelines
OK - License tag must match actual license
OK - Any license files must be in %doc
OK - Spec file must be in American English
OK - Spec file must be legible
OK - Sources must match upstream

$ sha1sum dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz.fedora
bff1d3e8def9f5c7f956adffdef3a860a05e0e95  dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz
bff1d3e8def9f5c7f956adffdef3a860a05e0e95  dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz.fedora

OK - Package must build on at least one primary arch
OK - Arches that the package doesn't build on must be excluded with a relevant
bug

In this case mono simply isn't available on some arches, so I don't think this
is a blocking issue.

OK - All necessary build dependencies must be in BuildRequires
N/A - Locales must be handled properly
N/A - Binary rpms containing libraries must call ldconfig
OK - Package must not bundle system libraries
N/A - Relocatable packages must have rationalization
OK - Package must own all directories it creates
OK - Package must not list a file more than once in %files
OK - Files must have correct permissions
OK - Macros must be consistent
OK - Package must contain code or permissible content
N/A - Large documentation files must be in a -doc subpackage
OK - %doc files must not affect program operation
N/A - Header files must be in a -devel subpackage
N/A - Static libraries must be in a -static package
N/A - Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package
OK - -devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
OK - Package must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
N/A - Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file
OK - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
OK - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items
============

N/A - If the package is missing license text in a separate file, the packager
should query upstream for it
N/A - Description and summary should contain translations if available
OK - Package should build in mock
OK - Package should build on all supported architectures

Koji scratch build seems okay:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3511249

OK - Package should function as described

Built and used banshee-2.2 against this, and it seems to be working well.

N/A - Scriptlets should be sane
N/A - Non-devel subpackages should require the base package with a full version
OK - pkgconfig files should be placed appropriately
N/A - File dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin
should require package instead
N/A - Binaries/scripts should have man pages

Mono-specific Items
===================

OK - DLLs must be registered with gacutil
OK - .pc files must be in a -devel package
OK - Empty -debuginfo packages must not be built
OK - Package must NOT contain any pre-compiled .dll or .exe files
OK - Package must NOT contain .dll files from other projects
OK - Package should not redefine _libdir

Issues
======

1) There's no link to a tracking bug for the architectures that this package
doesn't build on. However, this is something that covers pretty much all mono
packages, so I don't think that's too important.

2) The main package description is missing a full stop, and the description for
the -devel package should probably mention GLib at some point.

I don't see any blocking issues though, but I'm sure I missed something. =)

-- 
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