[Bug 495902] Review Request: olpc-kbdshim - grab key and better rotation support for the XO laptop

Fri Jun 5 09:26:06 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=495902

--- Comment #12 from Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de>  2009-06-05 05:26:03 EDT ---
REVIEW FOR a114ac5ea879e928955eec89863f9009  olpc-kbdshim-6-1.src.rpm

OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/olpc-kbdshim-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
FIX - MUST: The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines, explained
below.
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+
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 (could be a little better
though)
N/A - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by
MD5
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
i386
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.
TBD - SHOULD: The package functions as described.
N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
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.

Issues:
- MINOR: BuildRoot: should be
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
(minor, but for a new package we should do this properly I think)

- MAJOR: BuildArch: i386 is wrong, I think you want %{ix86} or no BuildArch at
all.

- MAJOR: Requires: hal is missing for proper function and dir ownership

- MINOR: Description: line breaks at 80 characters

- MAJOR: RPM_OPT_FLAGS not honored:
cc -Wall -O2 -g -DVERSION=6 $(pkg-config --cflags hal) $(pkg-config --cflags
glib-2.0) $(pkg-config --cflags dbus-glib-1)     olpc-kbdshim-hal.c 
$(pkg-config --libs hal) $(pkg-config --libs glib-2.0) $(pkg-config --libs
dbus-glib-1) -o olpc-kbdshim-hal
cc -Wall -O2 -g -DVERSION=6    olpc-kbdshim.c   -o olpc-kbdshim

- MAJOR: Preserve timestamps during install by adding "-p", see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps

Questions:
- Is the non-hal version still developed? If so, this package should be named
olpc-kbdshim-hal, so that both version could be packaged

- Is there any way to tag or mark the checkouts, so we can later get a specific
version and verify it's md5? For a git snapshot this package is not named
properly, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages

- How can I test the program's functionality? I'm especially interested in the
brightness because this is something I need for LXDE and Xfce as well.

-- 
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.