[Bug 521724] Review Request: perl-Makefile-DOM - Simple DOM parser for Makefiles

Thu Oct 22 22:56:21 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=521724

--- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout <nb at fedoraproject.org>  2009-10-22 18:56:20 EDT ---
I am doing an informal review, as I am not a sponsor for the packager group.

OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.

[nb at epsilon SPECS]$ rpmlint perl-Makefile-DOM.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[nb at epsilon SRPMS]$ rpmlint perl-Makefile-DOM-0.004-1.fc12.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[nb at epsilon noarch]$ rpmlint perl-Makefile-DOM-0.004-1.fc12.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
both CC-BY-SA and BSD licenses are ok - there are also some PHP-licensed
libraries and LGPL libraries. 
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 
License tag is incorrect, see below
OK: 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: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: 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. 
Make your conf file another source rather than combining it to the existing
tarball. 
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. 
OK: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on any arch bug
must be filed and/or exclude arch used. 
OK: 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.
OK: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/ is strictly forbidden.
N/A: 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. 
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: 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. 
OK: 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. 
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: 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: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
NA: 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). 
OK: 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.
NA: Header files must be in a -devel package.
NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
NA: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability). 
NA: 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.
NA: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
NA: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
NA: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages 
OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.  

If I were a sponsor for the packager group, this package would be APPROVED.

-- 
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.