4:59 p.m.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1030
--- Comment #125 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com> 2010-03-05 17:59:00 ---
X = good
- = not so good
? = not sure of status
N/A = not applicable
[ X ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
[ X ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[ X ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[ - ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
There are loads of bundled libraries, some internal to the project and
therefore
no problem, but others are external libraries and really should be
packaged
separately. See previous ten or so comments. For guidelines, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
[ - ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
While the main package is GPLv2+, some bundled libraries
have...odd...licenses.
As mentioned in earlier comments, we really need to do something about
them,
especially libGoAhead.
[ X ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
[ X ] MUST: The text of the license for the package must be included in %doc
[ X ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ X ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ - ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL.
The current source in the SRPM *doesn't* match that generated using
xbmc-generate-tarball-xz.sh. There are several directories in
xbmc/lib that
shouldn't be there.
[ X ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture (tested on i686, x86_64)
[ N/A ] 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.
[ X ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ? ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
XBMC stores its language files as xml files. I'm not sure how that
affects
this rule.
[ N/A ] 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.
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review.
[ X ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[ X ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[ X ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[ X ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[ X ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ X ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ N/A ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[ X ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
[ N/A ] MUST: 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.
[ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[ X ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.
[ - ] 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.
The file is installed in the proper location, but I don't see desktop-
file-install being run, which means it won't show up in the menus
until the
user logs out, and then in again (at least as far as I understand it).
[ X ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
[ X ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[ X ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[ X ] SHOULD: query upstream to include it. (At least, I'm assuming upstream
is
involved based on the upstream comments in this bug report.)
[ N/A ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if
available.
[ - ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
(Don't have
a fast enough Internet connection).
[ X ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[ X ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
example.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: 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.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: 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.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If
it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
--
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.
You are the assignee for the bug.