[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[Bug 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: Monodevelop


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904


fedora adslpipe co uk changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fedora adslpipe co uk




------- Additional Comments From fedora adslpipe co uk  2006-02-03 19:08 EST -------
Re comment #1 - it built ok for me with mono-develop as the  only dependency I
needed to satisfy.


A bit heavy going for a specfile & mono newbie, but here goes for what it's
worth ...



      - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.


# rpmlint -v RPMS/i386/monodoc-1.1.9-2.i386.rpm
I: monodoc checking
E: monodoc no-binary
E: monodoc only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

I pulled the rpm apart with rpm2cpio | cpio -id and had a look inside
I presume the no-binary is because it produces PE rather than ELF executables?
What do beagle/fspot do in this case? 

W: monodoc no-documentation

Ironic!

W: monodoc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/monodoc.pc

Don't know what this is, so no clue why rpmlint moans about it

# rpmlint -v RPMS/i386/monodoc-debuginfo-1.1.9-2.i386.rpm
I: monodoc-debuginfo checking

OK

# rpmlint -v SRPMS/monodoc-1.1.9-2.src.rpm
I: monodoc checking
E: monodoc hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/mono/gac
E: monodoc hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib

within %install any reason you've used some with /usr/lib instead of %{_libdir} ?
e.g.
  %{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/pkgconfig
  %{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}/usr/lib/mono/gac

E: monodoc hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/mono/gac/monodoc
E: monodoc hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/mono/monodoc/monodoc.dll

similar from %files shodle these be %{_libdir} too?
  /usr/lib/mono/gac/monodoc
  /usr/lib/mono/monodoc/monodoc.dll


      - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.


OK


      - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec

OK

      - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.


NOT CHECKED


      - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible
license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of
Packaging Guidelines.


"COPYING" file shows GPL
If REDHAT can't comment about legal matters on mono/.net I'm sure I'm not
qualified to :-(
In general found individual sorce fiels didn't have licence info contained


      - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.


GPL in .spec and "COPYING"


      - 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.


No %doc in %files, shoul dit be added and COPYING placed there?


      - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.


Didn't spot any Britishisms ;-)


      - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.


Clean


      - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source

# md5sum /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/monodoc-1.1.9.tar.gz
2b8548b7160c1f3124c9f7b8f2044a88  /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/monodoc-1.1.9.tar.gz

# wget -O upstream.tgz http://go-mono.com/sources/monodoc/monodoc-1.1.9.tar.gz
--23:35:38--  http://go-mono.com/sources/monodoc/monodoc-1.1.9.tar.gz
           => `upstream.tgz'
Resolving go-mono.com... 64.14.94.188
Connecting to go-mono.com|64.14.94.188|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 17,328,634 (17M) [application/x-gzip]

100%[==================================================================================================>]
17,328,634   111.94K/s    ETA 00:00

23:38:09 (111.73 KB/s) - `upstream.tgz' saved [17328634/17328634]

# md5sum /root/upstream.tgz
2b8548b7160c1f3124c9f7b8f2044a88  /root/upstream.tgz


OK


      - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one supported architecture.


OK for me on i386
FAILED to compile for me on x86_64 (likely flaky mono on my machine beagle is
acting up to)

      - 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 needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to
the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries
during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment
until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the
long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one
(or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: [WWW]
FE-ExcludeArch-x86, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x64, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-ppc


NOT CHECKED


      - MUST: A package must not contain any BuildRequires that are listed in
the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.


OK

      - MUST: All other Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.


SEEMED OK, I had to install mono-devel


      - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.


NO /locale/* files at all, not sure if monodoc has any i18n at all


      - MUST: If the package contains shared library files located in the
dynamic linker's default paths,


No .so files, whether it needs to do anything similar with it's .dll files I
don't know


      - 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.


Dont think so


      - 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. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly
in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ([WWW]
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to assume that
those directories exist.

Not checked


      - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.

No wildcards used at all, disn't spot any dupes


      - 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.


No %defattr, can't see a reason why it would hurt to have one


      - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).


yes


      - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the
macros section of Packaging Guidelines.

yes

      - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.


seems OK, rpmlint doesn't acknowledge PE as code, but it plainly is also the
actual monodoc content seems to be in xml bundles


      - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -docs 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)


This *is* a docs package

      - 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.


No %doc at all at present, should be fixed


      - MUST: Header files or static libraries must be in a -devel package.


Didn't check


      - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package.


There is a monodoc.pc file being packaged, I don't kneo if ".pc" files are
significant in some other way 
(apart from pgkconfig) to mono?


      - 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.


No .so files


      - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency.


No separate -devel


      - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should
be removed in the spec.


No .la files


      - 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. This is described in detail in the
desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. 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.


No .desktop file, unclear to me now if monodocs actually displays docs, in GUI,
or just prepares thenm for later display, or browser based display.


      - 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 Extras 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.


Didn't check


      - 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.


It does include separate licence file


      - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.


No extra translations provided


      - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.


not done


      - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.


Only done on i386, tried and failed  on x86_64 (probably not this packages fault)


      - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.


Installed ok in i386 machine that was used to build
no info how to start, or what it should do
I tried "mono mod.exe" at least it gave a polite error rather than crashing


      - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.


None used


      - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.


None



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]