[Bug 406] Review request: rpmfusion-packager - Tools for setting up a rpmfusion maintainer environment

Sat Mar 14 15:34:38 CET 2009

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406

Steven Moix <steven.moix at axianet.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |steven.moix at axianet.ch

--- Comment #3 from Steven Moix <steven.moix at axianet.ch>  2009-03-14 15:34:37 ---
This should be a formal review which respects the Fedora guidelines, but I
don't have any package in rpmfusion yet so I don't know if I can take ownership
of that...

# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
OK, 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK, corresponds to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK, rpmfusion-packager
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK, it matches https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
OK, GPLv2+ and the licence is included in the source code
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
OK, GPLv2+ and the licence is included in the source code
# MUST: 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.
OK, %doc contains "COPYING"
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK
# MUST: 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.
OK, rpmfusion-packager-0.2.tar.bz2. MD5 is a4e3dcca05f711243ee949535d8f957c
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK, tested on x86_64
# 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.
OK, tested a build in mock for i386 and x86_64
# 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.
OK, build tested in mock
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK, Not concerned here
# 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.
OK, not concerned here
# 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.
OK, not concerned here
# 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.
OK, everything is owned
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK, no excessive rights
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK
# 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).
OK, not concerned
# 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.
OK
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK, not concerned
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK, not concerned
# MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
OK, not concerned
# 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.
OK, not concerned
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK, not concerned
# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
OK, not concerned
# 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.
OK, not concerned
# MUST: 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.
OK
# MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK
# SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
OK, not concerned
# SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK, not concerned
# SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
OK, it builds
# SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
Only tested for x86_64 and i386
# SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Not tested as i don't have any package in RPMFusion right now
# SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
Not concerned
# SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
Not concerned
# 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.
A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
Not concerned
# 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.
Not concerned

So basically everything looks fine except that I couldn't test the package in
the real world.

-- 
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.