[Bug 328161] Review Request: concordance - Software to program the Logitech Harmony remote control
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Apr 27 13:04:16 UTC 2008
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: concordance - Software to program the Logitech Harmony remote control
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=328161
nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net 2008-04-27 09:04 EST -------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
2008-04-27 13:00:00 review of
http://www.silfreed.net/download/repo/packages/concordance/concordance-0.20-2.src.rpm
$ sha1sum concordance.spec
19f0483a2e2c192f3ac4282f3279a841195ba700 concordance.spec
Generic review checklist:
=========================
☑ MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
Nothing to see:
$ rpmlint concordance-0.20-2.fc9.src.rpm concordance-0.20-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm \
concordance-debuginfo-0.20-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm
$
☑ 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 unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming
Guidelines.
OK
☑ MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK
☑ MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
OK
☑ MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
OK
☑ 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
☑ MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
☑ 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 is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
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
☐ MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
This package depends on libconcord, which is not available in koji right now.
So this bit can't be checked till libconcord is approved. However a local
x86_64 mock build worked fine.
☐ 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. (Extras
Only) The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following
bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86,
FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
Not checked for the aforementionned reasons
☑ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
See the freeform review.
☑ MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK
☐ MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, 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:
N/A
☐ 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.
N/A
☐ 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 the Guidelines for examples.
N/A
☑ MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
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
☑ 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, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK
☑ MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK
☐ MUST: Large documentation files should 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)
N/A
☑ 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.
N/A
☐ MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A
☐ MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
N/A
☐ 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.
N/A
☐ MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
N/A
☐ MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
N/A
☐ 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.
N/A
☑ 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). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for
details.
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.
N/A
☐ SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
N/A
☑ SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See
MockTricks for details on how to do this.
OK
☐ SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
See before
☑ SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
$ date && concordance -vK && concordance -vk
dim avr 27 14:42:51 CEST 2008
Concordance 0.20
Copyright 2007 Kevin Timmerman and Phil Dibowitz
This software is distributed under the GPLv3.
Requesting Identity: 100% done
Remote time has been set to 2008/04/27 Sun 14:42:51 +0
Success!
Concordance 0.20
Copyright 2007 Kevin Timmerman and Phil Dibowitz
This software is distributed under the GPLv3.
Requesting Identity: Error requesting identity
Failed with error 1
$ concordance -vk
Concordance 0.20
Copyright 2007 Kevin Timmerman and Phil Dibowitz
This software is distributed under the GPLv3.
Requesting Identity: 100% done
Remote time is 2008/04/27 Sun 14:43:07 +0
Success!
☐ SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
N/A
☐ SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A
☐ 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.
N/A
☐ 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. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines
for further information.
N/A
Freeform comments:
==================
Spec mostly ok, however:
— please use a downloads.sourceforge.net source URL such as
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%version}.tar.bz2
— please remove the private copy of getopt sources in %prep to make sure you
don't accidently build against it
— please add the rest of the documentation files to %doc, such as
SubmittingPatches, Codingstyle, %{name}/INSTALL.linux
— please make the project submit a patch to the linux-input ML
<linux-input at vger.kernel.org> so harmony USB ids are not claimed by the HID
driver by default (it's all fine and dandy to unbind dynamically but not
binding at all in the first place is much preferred)
— please fix this x86_64 build warning:
concordance.c: In function 'cb_print_percent_status':
concordance.c:126: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size
— please remove the pam_console/udev glue & deps, it's supposed to be totally
deprecated in favor of ConsoleKit/PolicyKit nowadays
— it would be nice to define a specific CK access_control.type
— it would be nice to merge the CK bits upstream
— it would be nice to run your generated XML files through xmllint, both to
have them pretty-indented and to make sure they do not have a syntax
problem.
— please remove the harmony Obsoletes/Provides, harmony was never distributed
by Fedora and these rules can only bite you later.
Anyway, a lot of this can be taken care of over time (but do not wait too long)
⇒ APPROVED, on the condition libconcord is merged too
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkgUeVwACgkQI2bVKDsp8g36wQCgnwaxOoxU+vheK2G+00qrwTGN
IxEAoKohFWl5PthSpHu3yNqRB2j03S5q
=LqUA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list