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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-11 19:54 EST ------- Review of http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/streamer-1.1.3-1.fc5.src.rpm * rpmlint must be run on every package. $rpmlint -v /home/andy/Desktop/streamer-1.1.3-1.fc5.src.rpm I: streamer checking $ rpmlint -v /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/streamer-1.1.3-1.i386.rpm I: streamer checking W: streamer incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1-3-1 1.1.3-1 $ rpmlint -v /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/streamer-debuginfo-1.1.3-1.i386.rpm I: streamer-debuginfo checking suggest correcting version 1.1-3-1 to 1.1.3-1 likewise 1.1-2-1 to 1.1.2-1 otherwise ok * package must be named according to the guidelines. ok * spec file name must match the base package name ok * package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. It amuses me that meeting the packaging guidlines is an item within the packaging guidelines checklist * package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license spec file = GPL tarball contains licence file = GPL v2 * The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. most source files themselves do contain copyright, but not licencing info, of those that do, only one or two clearly state GPL, others in contrib-plugin directory seem to make a weaker GPL claim. * If package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file 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, to be ultrapicky, add a space between "Name:" and "streamer"? suggestion, make Description: slightly more, err, descriptive e.g. use "Command line tool for streaming capture, including audio." from the README file. * The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source cannot test because source http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/streamer-1.1.3.tar.bz2 does not exist * The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. compiled and build on i386 (FC6T1/rawhide) * 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. (Extras Only) 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 nothing excluded, I can test on FC5/x86_64 later, does the packager know how it performs on other architectures? * All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. Some BRs are specified, I have not checked the list is exhaustive * The spec file MUST handle locales properly No locales in package * If the package contains shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths, that package must call ldconfig ok, .so files in own directory only, not added to linker path * 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. no such statement, assume this is correct. * 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. ok (/usr/lib/streamer and /usr/share/doc/streamer-version) * A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. ok, all files explicitly listed, no wildcards used at all would it be considered neater to use %{_libdir}/streamer/*.so instead? * 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, permissions on files set within rpm, not modified by %defattr or %attr * package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). ok * package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. does use both $ and % macros, but never mixes usage for the same macro, so meets guidelines * The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. ok, executable + supporting libraries * Large documentation files should 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) separate -doc not justified! * 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. ok * Header files or static libraries must be in a -devel package. none * Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package. none * 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. ok, no suffixes used * In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} ok, no devel package * Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. ok * 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, not a GUI app * 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. ok * If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ok, GPL file included * The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. none included * The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. not tested * The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. only tested on i386/FC6T1(rawhide) * The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. I do not have appropriate video capture hardware on this machine * If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. Ok, none used. * Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. ok, no sub-packages -- 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