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=459751 --- Comment #4 from Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-27 00:15:57 EDT --- MUST Items: OK - rpmlint is clean xx - does not follow Naming Guidelines + It would be better to name this package 'osggtk' instead of 'osgGtk'. The tarball is named 'osggtk' and Fedora's other OpenSceneGraph packages are named 'osgcal' and 'osgal'. Therefore having a completely lower-case name would be more consistent. But since you are also the upstream author, I would be willing to listen to your rationale for preferring otherwise. :-) OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines + Although the current Source0 URL works, according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net the Source0 tag should have 'downloads' and not 'download'. + Even Fedora 9 has OpenSceneGraph-devel >= 2.2.0 for sometime now. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires no need to add it if its not really required. + Why is there a runtime dependency on 'OpenSceneGraph-devel >= 2.2.0' for osgGtkmm-devel? If it is because the osgGtkmm header files need the OpenSceneGraph headers, then the osgGtkmm-1.0.pc should mention it. + The osgGtkmm sub-package does not explicitly require osgGtk. Now I can understand that RPM is going to autogenerate the dependency on the shared library, but https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package does that "subpackages other than -devel should also require the base package using a fully versioned dependency". I find that you have done so for all the other sub-packages, but only not for osgGtkmm. I confess that I do not know the rationale behind this guideline. In the meantime, I will try to find out the reason. + You could consider using '%{__install} -p' consistently through the %install stanza. OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines xx - License field does not meet actual license + Going by the license notices in the source code: (i) Makefile.am, examples/Makefile.am, osgGtk/Makefile.am, osgGtkmm/Makefile.am are under LGPLv3. (ii) the others are under GPLv3. Since you are the upstream author, for the Makefile.ams please consider marking them as GPLv3 or use the license notices in the autogenerated Makefile.ins. OK - upstream license file included in %doc OK - spec file uses American English OK - spec file is legible OK - sources match upstream sources OK - package builds successfully OK - ExcludeArch not needed xx - redundant and extra build dependencies listed + pkgconfig is brought in by all the -devel packages providing *.pc files OK - no locales OK - %post and %postun invoke ldconfig OK - package is not relocatable xx - file and directory ownership + The -devel and osgGtkmm-devel sub-packages should have 'Requires: gtk-doc' as it needs /usr/share/gtk-doc. OK - no duplicates in %file OK - file permissions set properly OK - %clean present OK - macros used consistently + Both %{name} and osgGtk are used. You could consider using %{name} throughout. + Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is looked down upon. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS OK - contains code and permissable content OK - -doc is not needed OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime OK - header files in -devel OK - no static libraries OK - devel has *.pc file and requires pkgconfig + Even though https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Pkgconfig_Files lays down that the -devel sub-package must have 'Requires: pkgconfig' if it includes a *.pc file, Fedora 11 onwards rpm-4.6 autogenerates this runtime dependency and the ones on the other -devel subpackages mentioned in the *.pc file. So please consider removing them from Fedora 11 and onwards using a %if %endif pair. In osgGtk-devel: Requires: gtk2-devel Requires: gtkglext-devel Requires: OpenSceneGraph-devel >= 2.2.0 Requires: pkgconfig In osgGtkmm-devel: Requires: gtkmm24-devel Requires: gtkglextmm-devel Requires: pkgconfig OK - library files without suffix in -devel OK - -devel requires base package OK - no libtool archives xx - %{name}.desktop file is invalid + According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop desktop-file-validate must be run on the .desktop file, and it says: [rishi@freebook osggtk-0.1.3]$ desktop-file-validate osgviewerGtk.desktop osgviewerGtk.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated [rishi@freebook osggtk-0.1.3]$ desktop-file-validate osgviewerGtkmm.desktop osgviewerGtkmm.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated [rishi@freebook osggtk-0.1.3]$ The key "Encoding" is deprecated on all supported versions of Fedora. Please consider removing it. OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages OK - buildroot correctly prepped OK - all file names valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - upstream provides license text xx - no translations for description and summary OK - package builds in mock successfully OK - package builds on all supported architectures OK - package functions as expected xx - scriptlets are not sane + Would be good if you could use the Gtk+ icon cache scripts from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache xx - subpackages other than -devel do not use fully versioned dependency + The osgGtkmm subpackage does not use a fully versioned dependency on osgGtk. OK - pkgconfig files in -devel OK - no file dependencies -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review