[Bug 1153] Review request: m2vmp2cut - MPEG2 frame accurate cutter
RPM Fusion Bugzilla
noreply at rpmfusion.org
Sun Nov 28 19:54:52 CET 2010
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1153
--- Comment #2 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan at gmail.com> 2010-11-28 19:54:50 ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1]
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x] PreReq is not used.
[!] Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2]
[-] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't
work.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] Rpmlint output is silent.
$ rpmlint *.rpm
m2vmp2cut.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found sv
m2vmp2cut.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cutpoints -> outpoints,
cut points, cut-points
m2vmp2cut.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
m2vmp2cut.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
m2vmp2cut.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
m2vmp2cut.src: W: no-%clean-section
m2vmp2cut.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cutpoints ->
outpoints, cut points, cut-points
m2vmp2cut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary m2vmp2cut
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
These warning all all OK. You are targeting F>=13.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches 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 is included in %doc.
[-] License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[3,4]
[!] Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : 9eb1e0455fa803b5f0cba34270532839
MD5SUM upstream package : 9eb1e0455fa803b5f0cba34270532839
[!] Compiler flags are appropriate.
[!] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[-] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Each %files section contains %defattr.
[-] No %config files under /usr.
[-] %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [5]
[-] Package contains a valid .desktop file.
[!] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] File names are valid UTF-8.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Package contains no bundled libraries.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[x] Package contains no static executables.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x] Package does not genrate any conflict.
[x] Package does not contains kernel modules.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
F14/x86_64
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] Package installs properly.
[x] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6]
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[?] Package functions as described.
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] 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] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] SourceX is a working URL.
[x] SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-] %check is present and all tests pass.
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
OK on F14/x86_64
[?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!] Dist tag is present.
[x] Spec use %global instead of %define.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x] No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[!] Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[?] File based requires are sane.
[!] Man pages included for all executables.
[x] Uses parallel make.
[-] Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
=== Issues ===
1. Not compiled with %{optflags}:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
2. Even if transcode is optional, it is strongly recommended. Please add it
among Requires.
3. License is GPLv2 only, not GPLv3+.
4. Package doesn't meet Fedora legal requirement, but this is fine because we
are RPM Fusion :-)
5. Package uses docs at runtime! m2vmp2cut.pl and wrapper.sh look for docs from
/usr/libexec/m2vmp2cut-0.79-dev/doc/ and they do not find them because you do
not install them.
$ /usr/libexec/m2vmp2cut-0.79-dev/bin/m2vmp2cut.pl --examples
cat: /usr/libexec/m2vmp2cut-0.79-dev/bin/../doc/Examples: No such file or
directory
$ /usr/libexec/m2vmp2cut-0.79-dev/bin/m2vmp2cut.pl --usage
/usr/libexec/m2vmp2cut-0.79-dev/bin/m2vmp2cut.pl: --usage: unknown or
incorrectly used option.
cat: /usr/libexec/m2vmp2cut-0.79-dev/bin/../doc/Usage: No such file or
directory
I don't know what would be a good place (or if libexec is fine) but certainly
not in %docdir because you can omit to install documentation. I'm gonna ask for
assistance in Fedora-packaging mailing list.
6. These macros are not used and must be removed:
%global desktopdir %_datadir/applications
%global icontop %_datadir/icons/hicolor
%global icondir %icontop/32x32/apps
7. Perl packaging guidelines have been changed and the way you omit a perl
requirement is changed. The updated URL is:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#Perl
Anyway I couldn't implement what you tried to achieve.
=== Non-mandatory issues ==
1. Disttag is missing (this is optional but strongly suggested):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag
2. Why not requiring xterm instead of /usr/bin/uxterm (it should be faster to
check a package name instead of what package provides a file).
3. Install do not preserve timestamps.
4. Please consider adding man page/man pages.
5. I think you should use macro in %{macro} format and not in %macro format.
This is because the first allows you to put the macro adjacent to other text
and the latter is used for parametrized macros:
http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/Macros#UsingaMacro
=== Questions ==
1. I have some problems in testing this package... it is not very clear to me
how to use it.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files
[6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the rpmfusion-developers
mailing list