[Bug 786860] Review Request: opa - Opa, AGPL language for web 2.0

Fri Mar 9 17:57:33 UTC 2012

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=786860

--- Comment #6 from rudy.sicard at mlstate.com 2012-03-09 12:57:29 EST ---
Hi,

Thank you for the review, and sorry for the delays.
Here are my comment and question.
The new spec and srpm and rpm are available at:
http://download.opalang.org/fedora-package-candidate/opa.spec
http://download.opalang.org/fedora-package-candidate/opa-0.9.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
http://download.opalang.org/fedora-package-candidate/opa-0.9.0-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm

I list all issues and give an "ANSWER" for each.
I finish by a summary.

BEGIN ISSUE
$ rpmlint opa.spec
opa.spec:106: W: macro-in-comment %buildroot
opa.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: opalang.tar.gz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

I think the Source0 should be a URL and not just the file name.

$ rpmlint opa-0.9.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
opa.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Opa
opa.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
opa.src:106: W: macro-in-comment %buildroot
opa.src: W: invalid-url Source0: opalang.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
END ISSUE

BEGIN ANSWER
I changed Source0 to be a URL.

Note that the source can be a file name if the explanation of how to contruct
file is present.
END ANSWER

BEGIN ISSUE
I was unable to build the binary package using mock:

+ rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILD/usr
+ ./install_release.sh -no-doc -keep-build -keep-install-sys -srcdir . -dir
/builddir/build/BUILD/usr
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gqsfjf (%build)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gqsfjf (%build)
END ISSUE

BEGIN ANSWER
Both RPM and SRPM build successfully on my x86_64 with fedora rawhide.

I have tried to used mock but did not manage to use it yet. I will retry mock
and post the result.
END ANSWER

BEGIN ISSUE
[FAIL] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.

Can't you use %{_libdir} (or similar) macro?

No file names in %files section. I think "%{_bindir}/*" is too general and
probably includes all under /usr/bin directory.
END ISSUE

BEGIN ANSWER
I am not sure to understand what you mean.

Using %{_libdir} ? Where ?

I only used plain directory names to handle the lib/lib64 choice (by making
lib64 pointing to lib in %_buildroot).
Everything else uses macros.

The upstream version always use lib, whereas fedora use lib or lib64 depending
or the architeture.

%{_bindir}/* is used in the example in fedora wiki
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package.
(see %files section)
END ANSWER

BEGIN ISSUE
[FAIL] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.

[NA] MUST: 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.
END ISSUE

BEGIN ANSWER
See previous about binary package and mock.
END ANSWER

BEGIN ISSUE
[FAIL] MUST: 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.

=> Like you wrote in the comment, you can remove packages that are dependencies
of
another package that you requires.
END ISSUE

BEGIN ANSWER
I will do a pass to minimize dependencies.
END ANSWER

BEGIN ISSUE
[NA] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.

[NA] 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.

[NA] 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
END ISSUE

BEGIN ISSUE
[FAIL] 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.

%dir is not used in the %files section.

END ISSUE

BEGIN ANSWER
The section contains
%{_bindir}/*
%{_libdir}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}
%{_datadir}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/man/man1/*

The package depends on pre-existence of system dir %{_bindir},
%{_datadir}/man/man1.
It creates %{_libdir}/%{name}, %{_libdir}/%{name}, %{_datadir}/doc/%{name} and
own everything that is inside.

>From what I know
(http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html),
%dir helps packaging a directory only (without content).

Should I separate the registering of directory and directory content ?
e.g. Convert
%files
%{_libdir}/%{name}
into
%files
%dir %{_libdir}/%{name}
 %{_libdir}/%{name}/*

END ANSWER

BEGIN ISSUE
[FAIL]  MUST: 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)

No files are listed in the %files section.
END ISSUE

BEGIN ANSWER
Sorry but I don't understand the problem here.
No files are listed twice.
END ANSWER

BEGIN ISSUE
[FAIL] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example.

No files are listed in the %files section.
END ISSUE

BEGIN ANSWER
To me the files already have appropriate permissions.
Theses permissions are not specified in the %files section but correctly set
before this section (as in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package)
END ANSWER

BEGINE ISSUE
[NA] MUST: 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). [18]
MUST: 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.

[NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.

[NA] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [20]
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}

[NA] MUST: 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.
END ISSUE

BEGIN ISSUE
[FAIL] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Since I was unable to create the rpm files I couldn't verify this.
END ISSUE

BEGIN ANSWER
In my tests the package files have correct UTF-8 names.
END ANSWER

BEGIN SUMMARY
I have tried to answer all the issues.
I will upload a new spec file.
However I still need to test the package building using mock.
(it builds fine outside mock on my fedora 17)

Two questions:
 - is it appropriate to add a directory via %files when both the directory and
its content are part of the package ?
 - it is legal to use %{bindir}\* in %files section when package only creates
files inside the bin subdir ?
END SUMMARY

-- 
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.