[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459





--- Comment #21 from Michal Ambroz <rebus at seznam.cz>  2010-03-29 02:28:29 ---
Hello, 
I have tried to do the formal review of the current src.rpm and spec file
an here are the results.


Key:
- = not applicable
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[X]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Name coresponds to the upstream tarball name

[X]  Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[!]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- rpmlint suggests not mixing spaces and tabs for indentation
- second copy of man pages copied to the doc
- documents have got 8MB - it would be worth of thinking about the doc package
- include files in /usr/include/cudart should probably be in separate -headers
package (precedens could be for example stdio.h which is in package
glibc-headers) 
- a lot of cuda tools is not packaged (nvcc, preprocessors, tpx assembler
etc.), just binaries from open64 project are in the package so the installation
of this package will be much different in comparision of installaton of the
upstream package.


[X]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: FC12

[!]  Rpmlint output: attached
- some formal minor issues with the spec file found, duplicit man pages

[X]  Buildroot is correct
[!]  Package licensed - free to distribute if binaries are not modified
Binaries are stripped during build of the package - this is not permitted by
the license.

[X]  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.
[X]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[X]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[X]  Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
Arches excluded: all but i685 and x86_64 (resp. i386 and x86_64 for <FC10)
Why: binary distribution from nvidia

[X]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-]  The spec file handles locales properly.
[X]  ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[X]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[!]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
man pages are packed twice

[X]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[X]  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[X]  Package consistently uses macros, however as there are used
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT and path macros like %{_bindir} on the same line, I would
recommend rather using %{buildroot} instead

[!]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
Binaries are stripped during build of the package - this is not permitted by
the license. I would recommend to do not strip or ask upstream for permission
to do that.

[!]  Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
- documentation is huge - 8.5MB and should be in separate -doc subpackage

[X]  Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]  Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
- header files are not, but shuold be in separate -devel package

[-]  Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-]  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).
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[-]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[!]  Latest version is packaged.
- latest version is 3.0, however it could still have got sense to have package
of the older version of the compiler for compatibility reasons. 

[X]  Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]  Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[?]  Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
tested only on i686 (building for i586)

[X]  Package functions as described.
[X]  Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]  The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[X]  File based requires are sane.


-- 
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.