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

[Bug 180298] Review Request: gnonlin

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: gnonlin


------- Additional Comments From jeff ollie clive ia us  2006-02-07 23:40 EST -------
Here's the full review:

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

Not OK:

[jcollie lt16585 result]$ rpmlint gnonlin-
W: gnonlin non-standard-group System/Libraries

Should be "System Environment/Libraries".

W: gnonlin-devel non-standard-group Development/C

Should be "Development/Libraries".

W: gnonlin-devel no-documentation

Safe to ignore, but wouldn't hurt to include the COPYING.LIB file in
the -devel subpackages %doc.

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


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


- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.


- 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.


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

Not OK - the .spec (and the web page) indicates LGPL but the COPYING
file included in the package is the GPL.  COPYING.LIB is the LGPL

- 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

OK (But see above)

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


- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the
  reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be
  impossible to perform a review. Fedora Extras is not the place
  for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ([WWW]


- 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.


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

OK (Tested devel/i386)

- 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]


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


- MUST: All other Build dependencies must be listed in


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

OK (no localized text included in package).

- MUST: If the package contains shared library files located in
  the dynamic linker's default paths, that package must call
  ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple
  subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a
  %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of
  the correct syntax for this is:

  %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
  %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

OK (shared libraries are included but running ldconfig is not needed
on gstreamer plugins)

- 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

OK (Not designed to be locatable)

- 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.


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

NOT OK (The %{_includedir}/gnl/* in the -devel subpackage's %file is
not necessary. %{_includedir}/gnl will pick up the directory and all
of the files below it.)

- 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.


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


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

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


- 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)


- 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.


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


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


- 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.


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


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


- 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.

OK (no GUI applications)

- 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.


- 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 (package includes license text)

- 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.

OK (builds in mock for devel/i386)

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


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

OK (I think.  I tried to use as part of pitivi. pitivi runs (or at
least opens it's main window) but I'm unable to do anything.  I don't
think that that's the fault of gnonlin though.)

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

OK (no scriptlets used)

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

OK (all subpackages have fully versioned dependency)

Some other things that I noticed:

1. Actually, without the aclocal and autoconf in %prep gettext-devel
   isn't needed as a build requirement.

2. Don't need the Requires(pre) and Requires(post) since there are no
   %pre and %post scripts.

3. I would expand the URL of the gnonlin home page to

Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

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