[Bug 737308] Review Request: gdlmm - C++ bindings for the gdl library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Sep 18 18:46:18 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=737308
--- Comment #1 from Dodji Seketeli <dodji at redhat.com> 2011-09-18 14:46:18 EDT ---
I have reviewed this package, successfully built it[1], installed it,
built the Nemiver debugger against it, and could see test the package
by using Nemiver.
This package is OK to get into F17, as far as I can tell.
Please find below the formal review.
* rpmlint outputs
$ rpmlint SRPMS/gdlmm-3.1.90-1.fc16.src.rpm -i
RPMS/x86_64/gdlmm-3.1.90-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/gdlmm-devel-3.1.90-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
RPMS/noarch/gdlmm-doc-3.1.90-1.fc15.noarch.rpm gdlmm gdlmm-devel
(none): E: no installed packages by name SRPMS/gdlmm-3.1.90-1.fc16.src.rpm
(none): E: no installed packages by name -i
(none): E: no installed packages by name
RPMS/x86_64/gdlmm-3.1.90-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
(none): E: no installed packages by name
RPMS/x86_64/gdlmm-devel-3.1.90-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
(none): E: no installed packages by name
RPMS/noarch/gdlmm-doc-3.1.90-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
gdlmm.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gdl -> gel, gal, godly
gdlmm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gdl -> gel, gal, godly
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgdkmm-3.0.so.1
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgiomm-2.4.so.1
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libpangomm-1.4.so.1
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcairomm-1.0.so.1
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgdk-3.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libatk-1.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgio-2.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libpangoft2-1.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libpng12.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcairo-gobject.so.2
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libpango-1.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libfreetype.so.6
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libfontconfig.so.1
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgmodule-2.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcairo.so.2
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgthread-2.0.so.0
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
gdlmm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdlmm-3.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
gdlmm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 24 warnings.
$
The only warning I'd care about are the unused-direct-shlib-dependency
one. I believe this is because the gdlmm upstream tarball lacks
-Wl,-as-needed linker option. This is not an error. It'll merely
cause a slower-to-load library. My recommendation would be to report
this upstream, but I wouldn't block this package because of that.
* MUST items
- [X] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
- [X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
- [X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
- [X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
- [X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
- [X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
- [X] 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.
- [X] The spec file must be written in American English
- [X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- [X] 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. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
- [X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
- [X] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec
in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a
bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not
compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed
in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
- [X] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
- [X] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
- [X] 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.
- [X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
- [X] 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. Without this,
use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
- [X] 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.
- [X] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
- [X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example.
- [X] Each package must consistently use macros.
- [X] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
- [X] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
- [X] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
- [X] Header files must be in a -devel package.
- [X] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- [X] 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.
- [X] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires:
%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
- [X] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.
- [X] 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.
- [X] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by
other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be
installed should own the files or directories that other packages may
rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should
ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the
filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to
own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present
that at package review time.
- [X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
* SHOULD Items
- [X] 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] The description and summary sections in the package spec
file should contain translations for supported Non-English
languages, if available.
- [X] The reviewer should test that the package builds in
mock.
- [X] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on
all supported architectures.
- [X] The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
example.
- [X] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be
sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to
determine sanity.
- [X] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency.
- [X] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their
usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should
be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main
pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime,
e.g. gcc or gdb.
- [X] 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.
- [X] your package should contain man pages for
binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them
where they make sense.
[1]: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3358993
--
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