[Bug 498390] Review Request: rakudo - Rakudo - A Perl compiler for Parrot

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Jul 31 23:59:45 UTC 2009


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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498390





--- Comment #11 from Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de>  2009-07-31 19:59:43 EDT ---
REVIEW FOR b9e3e00e3ad9a0c99ea5b190c14fa84f  rakudo-0.2009.07-2.fc11.src.rpm

FAIL - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
$ rpmlint Desktop/rakudo-0.2009.07-2.fc11.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint fedora/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/rakudo-0.2009.07-2.fc11.x86_64.rpm 
rakudo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/perl6

see comment # 10 for a fix.

FAIL - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines:
Versioning is not correct
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
FAIL - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. RPM_OPT_FLAGS are not
honored, SourceURLs not ok.
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines: Artistic 2.0
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by
MD5 df841289a91a804a5bd2fe3125dfc06b
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
x86_64
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
N/A - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro.
N/A - 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 %post and %postun.
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.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates (none except in
docdir)
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes
a %defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content.
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
N/A - 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'.
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}
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
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.
OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


SHOULD Items:
N/A - 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.
OK - SHOULD: The the package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described.
N/A - 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.
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.


OTHER Items:
OK - latest version packaged
OK - timestamps are matching
OK - Provides and Requires are sane:
$ rpm -qp --provides rakudo-0.2009.07-2.fc11.x86_64.rpm
rakudo = 0.2009.07-2.fc11
rakudo(x86-64) = 0.2009.07-2.fc11


Issues:
- Use complete SourceURLs, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- Version should be 2009.7, drop the leading 0. If you want a leading 0, put it
in release. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
- export CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" to honor Fedora's compiler flags.



Gerd is going to upload a new package in a few hours and I think can approve
it.

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list