[Bug 1453] Review Request: libaacs - Open implementation of AACS
specification
RPM Fusion Bugzilla
noreply at rpmfusion.org
Sat Nov 5 07:29:54 CET 2011
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453
Alex Lancaster <alexl at users.sourceforge.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks|2 |3
AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review at rp |alexl at users.sourceforge.net
|mfusion.org |
--- Comment #12 from Alex Lancaster <alexl at users.sourceforge.net> 2011-11-05 07:29:54 CET ---
Ok, so there are a couple of queries to fix:
1. the rpmlint warning
2. the _isa in the Requires for -devel (as identifed in comment #9).
Everything else looks fine (build successfully in koji). Please post an
updated .spec and I'll do a final check before approving.
Here's the full review:
Key:
x = passed
? = needs work
NA = not applicable to this package
[ ? ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint)
# rpmlint libaacs-*
libaacs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libaacs.so.0.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
libaacs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Please investigate the shared-lib-call-exit error.
The 'no-documentation' can be ignored.
# rpmlint libaacs-0.2-0.1.20110925gite854d6673ad6c.fc14.src.rpm
libaacs.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{git_hash}
libaacs.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %Y
libaacs.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %m
libaacs.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %d
libaacs.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{git_short}
libaacs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libaacs-20110925gite854d6673ad6c.tar.bz2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
These can probably be ignored because they are needed to regenerate
the source tarball
[ x ] MUST: The package must be named according to the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
[ x ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package
<code>%{name}</code>, in the format <code>%{name}.spec</code> unless
your
package has an exemption. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name).
[ x ] MUST: The package must meet the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines.
[ x ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines.
Yes: LGPLv2+. Headers show it is v2+, matching the license described.
[ x ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames)
Yes: COPYING is LGPL
[ x ] 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
<code>%doc</code>.(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License
Text)
[ x ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#summary)
[ x ] MUST: The spec file for the package '''MUST''' be legible. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Spec_Legibility)
[ NA ] 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
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for how to deal with
this.
N/A: Builds from a git snapshot
[ x ] MUST: The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into
binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Support)
[ x ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec
in
<code>ExcludeArch</code>. Each architecture listed in
<code>ExcludeArch</code>
'''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
<code>ExcludeArch</code> line.
(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures)
[ x ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in
<code>BuildRequires</code>, except for any that are listed in the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
section of the
Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as
<code>BuildRequires</code> is
optional. Apply common sense.
BuildRequires OK: Did a successful scratch build on koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3490525
[ NA ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the <code>%find_lang</code> macro. Using
<code>%{_datadir}/locale/*</code> is strictly forbidden.(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files)
[ x ] 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 <code>%post</code> and <code>%postun</code>.
(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries)
[ x ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries)
[ 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. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RelocatablePackages)
[ x ] 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. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership)
[ x ] 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)(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles)
[ x ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions)
[ x ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros)
[ x ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent)
[ 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).
(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation)
[ x ] 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. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation)
[ x ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages)
[ NA ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries)
[ x ] 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. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages)
[ ? ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: <code>Requires:
%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} </code> (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage)
Please fix this as per comment #9.
[ x ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries)
[ 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. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop)
[ x ] 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
<code>filesystem</code> or <code>man</code> 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. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership)
[ x ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilenameEncoding)
[ x ] 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.
(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text)
[ NA ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if
available.
(refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#summary)
[ x ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
(refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/MockTricks)
Done in koji build, see above.
[ x ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#ArchitectureSupport)
Done: see koji build.
[ x ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
example.
Haven't been able to test as yet, no Blu-ray player. Not a blocker, however.
[ x ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Scriptlets)
They look OK (only ldconfig)
[ NA ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage)
[ x ] 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. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PkgconfigFiles)
Yes: .pc file is in -devel subpackage
[ NA ] 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. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileDeps)
[ NA ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
If
it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make
sense.(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Man_pages)
--
Configure bugmail: https://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.
More information about the rpmfusion-developers
mailing list