[Bug 485178] Review Request: ruby-dbus -- Ruby D-Bus client

Sun Nov 1 12:00:27 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=485178

--- Comment #2 from Victor Bogado <bogado at bogado.net>  2009-11-01 07:00:25 EDT ---
from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :

OK           *  MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should
be posted in the review.[1]

$ rpmlint '/home/bogado/Download/ruby-dbus-0.2.1-1.fc9.src.rpm' 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint /home/bogado/Download/ruby-dbus-0.2.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

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

The name is correct according to more strict rules for ruby packaging.

OK            * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name},
in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .

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. [3]
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.[4]
OK            * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK            * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
+/-           * 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.

There is a newer upstream version 0.2.10

OK             * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into
binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7]

NOT APPLY      * 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 MUST have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]

OK             * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires,
except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common
sense.

NOT APPLY      * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done
by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.[9]

NOT APPLY      * 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. [10]

OK             * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]

NOT APPLY      * 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. [12]

OK             * 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. [13]

OK             * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in
the spec file's %files listings. [14]

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. [15]

OK             * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]

NOT OK         * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]
see the previous comment, you used the hard coded version instead of %{version}

OK             * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[18]

NO APPLY       * MUST: Large documentation files must 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). [19]

OK             * 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. [19]

NOT APPLY      * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20]

NOT APPLY      * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21]

NOT APPLY      * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [22]

NOT APPLY      * 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. [20]

NOT APPLY      * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must
require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}
= %{version}-%{release} [23]

NOT APPLY      * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives,
these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[21]

NOT APPLY      * 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. 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. [24]

NOT APPLY      * 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.
[25]

OK             * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm
-rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26]

OK             * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]

---

in short : check the %{version} thing and optionally update to the last
upstream version and all should be fine.

-- 
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.