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: qt4: Qt GUI toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188180 ------- Additional Comments From laurent.rineau__fc_extra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-11 09:58 EST ------- I am not yet in group 'fedorabugs', but I can start a review. It is my first review, so I hope it is what is expected. Here is my review: ** MUST item, fix rpmlint warnings and errors: W: qt4 strange-permission qt4.sh 0755 W: qt4 strange-permission qt4.csh 0755 Could be ignored: 0755 is the permission used for all other files in /etc/profile.d W: qt4 hardcoded-prefix-tag %{qtdir} Do not use Prefix tag unless you motivate this choice. IMHO, qt4 cannot be relocated easily. You should remove this tag. E: qt4 configure-without-libdir-spec You can ignore this one: Qt configure is not GNU/configure W: qt4 non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/qt4-x86_64.conf Whereas the qt package in FC do not mark /etc/ld.conf.d/qt-*.conf as config file, I think that files in /etc/ld.conf.d/ should be tagged as %config(noreplace). If a user wants to modify those files, we should assume that he knows what he does. W: qt4 one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig W: qt4 one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig May be ignored. No easy to fix. Maybe you could use: %if "%{?ld_so_conf_d}" != "1" %post echo "%{qtdir}/lib" >> /etc/ld.so.conf /sbin/ldconfig %postun if [ $1 -eq 0 ]; then grep -v "^%{qtdir}/lib" /etc/ld.so.conf > /etc/ld.so.conf.new 2>/dev/null mv -f /etc/ld.so.conf.new /etc/ld.so.conf fi /sbin/ldconfig %else %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig %endif but I am not sure that it is a better choice. E: qt4-designer devel-dependency qt4-devel You can ignore this one. W: qt4-devel summary-ended-with-dot Development files and documentation for the Qt GUI toolkit. Easy to fix. E: qt4-devel invalid-directory-reference /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/QtNetwork.pc E: qt4-devel invalid-directory-reference /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/QtSvg.pc E: qt4-devel invalid-directory-reference /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/QtTest.pc E: qt4-devel invalid-directory-reference /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/Qt3Support.pc E: qt4-devel invalid-directory-reference /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/QtSql.pc E: qt4-devel invalid-directory-reference /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/QtGui.pc E: qt4-devel invalid-directory-reference /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/QtXml.pc E: qt4-devel invalid-directory-reference /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/QtCore.pc E: qt4-devel invalid-directory-reference /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/QtOpenGL.pc It seems that qmake adds -L%{_buildir}/qt-x11-opensource-src-4.1.2/lib in pkg-config files. It should should be sed off. E: qt4-devel arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/doc/qt4-devel-4.1.2/affine/affine (repeted 123 times) Please remove compiled demos and examples from the package. W: qt4-devel conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/qt4.csh W: qt4-devel conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/qt4.sh Please use %config(noreplace) instead of %config alone. See par 'Configuration Files' in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines E: qt4-devel executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/qt4.csh E: qt4-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/qt4.csh E: qt4-devel executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/qt4.sh E: qt4-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/qt4.sh Could be ignored, IMHO. E: qt4-devel script-without-shellbang /usr/lib64/qt4/mkspecs/macx-xcode/Info.plist.app E: qt4-devel script-without-shellbang /usr/lib64/qt4/mkspecs/macx-pbuilder/Info.plist.app E: qt4-devel script-without-shellbang /usr/lib64/qt4/mkspecs/macx-xcode/qmake.conf E: qt4-devel script-without-shellbang /usr/lib64/qt4/mkspecs/macx-pbuilder/qmake.conf Nobody cares, IMHO. W: qt4-devel wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/qt4-devel-4.1.2/tools/codecs/encodedfiles/iso-8859-15.txt W: qt4-devel wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/qt4-devel-4.1.2/tools/codecs/encodedfiles/iso-8859-1.txt Please ignore that warning: it seems to be intended. W: qt4-devel doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/qt4-devel-4.1.2/painting/svgviewer/svgviewer libQtSvg.so.4()(64bit) (repeted several times, for different compiled examples/demos) Same as above. W: qt4-MySQL summary-ended-with-dot MySQL drivers for Qt's SQL classes. W: qt4-ODBC summary-ended-with-dot ODBC drivers for Qt's SQL classes. W: qt4-PostgreSQL summary-ended-with-dot PostgreSQL drivers for Qt's SQL classes. W: qt4-SQLite summary-ended-with-dot SQLite drivers for Qt's SQL classes. Should be fixed. W: qt4-MySQL no-documentation W: qt4-config no-documentation W: qt4-designer no-documentation W: qt4-ODBC no-documentation W: qt4-PostgreSQL no-documentation W: qt4-SQLite no-documentation I do not see what documentation could be included, here. (End of rpmlint stuff.) ** OK: naming follows the Package Naming Guidelines. Actually, the section "Multiple packages with the same base name" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines does not cover the case of a package named "qt4" that is more recent than the package named "qt", but it seems the right choice. ** MUST: the package seems to conform to the Packaging Guidelines, except for the items pointed out by rpmlint above, and the following item: - I found two static libraries but they seem to be exception required by the upstream build system: tools/assistant/lib/lib.pro and tools/designer/src/uitools/uitools.pro both contain "CONFIG += staticlib". It seems ok. - The desktop file refers to the mime type x-designer. Actually, the file %{_datadir}/mimelnk/application/x-designer.desktop is owned by kdelibs. Maybe this is acceptable, but I must admit that I do not know. FC qt package suffers from the same issue. - The desktop file must be installed by desktop-file-install. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop - Should not %{qtdir}/etc be owned by the package qt4? Actually, I do not understand the redhat_artwork stuff. Can you explain? - The /etc/ld.so.conf.d stuff is not really clear. /etc/ld.so.conf.d is requires by FC qt on FC-4 and FC-5. And I doubt that qt4 could be accepted for previous versions of FC. Perhaps you should simplify your spec file by assuming that /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ is required. - Your spec file use both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags you should avoid to mixe the two forms. - What is the %{name} == "qt" test for? - Why these two lines? # remove broken links rm -f %{buildroot}%{qtdir}/mkspecs/default/linux-g++* ** OK: license is GPL/QPL, matches the upstream license, and the text of the license(s) is in %doc. ** OK: the tarball md5sum matches the one in ftp://ftp.trolltech.com/qt/source/md5sums.txt ** OK: the sources builds at least on x86_64, under FC-5. ** MUST: BuildRequires: - BuildRequires: perl|sed|tar are optional, according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions - missing build requirements: libXcursor-devel and libXi-devel ** MUST: remove duplicate files in %files: if %{_lib}=="lib", I think that %{qtdir}/lib is declared twice in the %files section: %dir %{qtdir}/lib/ %{qtdir}/%{_lib} ** MUST: doc subpackage I think that the documentation should go in a -devel-docs subpackage. -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review