Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Eiciel (ACL editor) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179758 ------- Additional Comments From fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-02-03 11:10 EST ------- ******* SELF REVIEW ****** - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. # rpmlint -v eiciel-0.9-5.x86_64.rpm I: eiciel checking seems nice # rpmlint -v eiciel-0.9-5.i386.rpm I: eiciel checking W: eiciel unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/nautilus/extensions-1.0/libeiciel-nautilus.so.0.0.0 W: eiciel unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/eiciel so why did this happen on i386 but not x86_64, I have a pretty mininal install on i386, some -devel tool missing perhaps? # rpmlint -v eiciel-0.9-5.src.rpm I: eiciel checking W: eiciel strange-permission eiciel-gcc41.patch 0646 ok, my original file, I did chmod it when passing it between root and another user, what is normal? 644? - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. I beieve this is straighforward "eiciel" though I do keep mistyping it :-) I see that the template .spec file does use %{?dist} take, but I don't get .fc5 in make RPMs is that ok for me, will it be ok in buildsys? - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec "eiciel.spec", tick - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. hmm, should I really treat the packaging guidelines as a checklist within a checklist? - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Copying file is GPL2, most cpp/hpp files have explicit GPL2 in them, necessary to check them all individually? - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. GPL, tick - 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. COPYING in %doc - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. tick - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora Extras is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ([WWW] http://www.ioccc.org/). I hope it's clean, I'll remove my commented section(s) following advice - 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. hmm, kind of like marking my own essay, but a083609380ec8272b3693cbaee184f13 eiciel-0.9.tar.bz2 - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. i386 and x86_64 - 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 needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x86, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x64, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-ppc status unknown on other arches so far - MUST: A package must not contain any BuildRequires that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. tick - MUST: All other Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. hmm, fedora-rmdevelrpms wanted to remove packages that would cause broken dependencies, I guess I need to setup mock to test this? - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. got me bang to rights there, I'll look at how it's done - MUST: If the package contains shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths, that package must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. my .so files stay well clear of /bin and /usr/bin is that enough? - 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. tick - 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. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ([WWW] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to assume that those directories exist. is this talking about directories it creates at runtime, or install time, what about my dirs e.g /usr/share/eiceil ? - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. tick, thanks paul - 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. hmmm, I din't make any change from the defattr the template gave me, presume I've got some work to do here? - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). tick - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. I hope the mix of $XXX and %{xxx} that the template started with is allowed? - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. no pr0n, tick - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -docs 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) not needed - 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. tick - MUST: Header files or static libraries must be in a -devel package. removed - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package. 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. but softlinks without suffix, pointing to the files with suffix are ok, right? - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. n/a - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. guilty, I'll exclude it then - 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. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. 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. Ok, need to add this, it can be run standalone as well as from properties in nautilus - 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 Extras 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. think i'm clear here - 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. none provided - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. not done so yet - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. i386 and x86_64 so far - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. works for me, provided you have a filesystem mounted "-o acl" but doesn't crash even if you don't - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. none - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. n/a OK, so I've found a few things to change :-) better to eat my time first! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
