[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jun 21 20:16:56 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: Merge Review: gphoto2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855
------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray at gmail.com 2008-06-21 16:16 EST -------
MUST Items:
OK - rpmlint is clean
OK - follows Naming Guidelines
OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec
xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
+ Is it necessary to define multilib_arches?
+ Since the package no longer carries the library, it should not be
mentioned in the description.
+ Source0 does not conform to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL packaging/rpm/package.spec.in
and packaging/rpm/gphoto2.spec seem to have a non-functional URL. Upstream
should be informed about it.
+ The --enable-docs and --enable-lockdev options could not be found in
configure and configure.ac and look like remnants from libgphoto2.
+ Is --with-doc-dir really needed? Shouldn't it by
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} instead of %{_docdir}/%{name}?
+ To preserve timestamps you could consider using:
make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ Why not include ChangeLog and TODO in %doc?
+ Why not include contrib/simple-mtpupload in %doc?
OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines
xx - License field meets actual license
+ Should be GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
packaging/rpm/package.spec.in and packaging/rpm/gphoto2.spec wrongly mention
LGPL. Upstream should be informed about it.
OK - upstream license file included in %doc
OK - spec file uses American English
OK - spec file is legible
OK - sources match upstream sources
OK - package builds successfully
OK - ExcludeArch for s390 and s390x
+ s390 and s390x are not Fedora supported architectures, yet. Out of
curiosity, what is the reason for this?
xx - redundant and extra build dependencies listed
+ libusb-devel and libexif-devel are brought in by libgphoto2-devel,
lockdev-devel looks like an old requirement from libgphoto2, while pkgconfig is
brought in by all the -devel packages providing *.pc files.
xx - locales not handled properly
+ BuildRequires: gettext should be added. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
OK - no shared libraries
OK - package is not relocatable
OK - file and directory ownership
OK - no duplicates in %file
OK - file permissions set properly
+ The preferred attribute definition is: %defattr(-,root,root,-)
OK - %clean present
xx - macros not used consistently
+ Both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT notations used.
+ No need to enclose them within double quotes. According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros only one style should
be used.
OK - contains code and permissable content
OK - -doc is not needed
OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime
OK - no header files
OK - no static libraries
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no library files
OK - -devel is not needed
OK - no libtool archives
OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed
OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages
OK - buildroot correctly prepped
OK - all file names valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items:
OK - upstream provides license text
xx - no translations for description and summary
OK - package builds in mock successfully
OK - package builds on all supported architectures
+ s390 and s390x are excluded, which are not Fedora architectures.
OK - package functions as expected
OK - scriptlets are sane
OK - subpackages are not needed
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no file dependencies
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list