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=480279 --- Comment #17 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-17 20:35:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > > Does it build with mock? Why not test it yourself ;) REVIEW FOR 22be0f2045eb66f11a3b3251c07e72ea gnome-globalmenu-0.7.4-4.fc10.src.rpm OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm gnome-applet-globalmenu.i386: W: no-documentation gnome-globalmenu.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-globalmenu.schemas gnome-globalmenu-devel.i386: W: no-documentation xfce4-globalmenu-plugin.i386: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. All these errors are safe to ignore, because docs are included in the base package and gconf schemas are no config files. OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv3 FAIL - MUST: The License field in the package spec file does not match the actual license. OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible. FAIL - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by MD5: The tarball inside the rpm has b9d861827b7ae8f4750df3dd450e0be6 while the one from Google has 9becbaff8deda8acf46b4f89863c8aa3 OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i386 N/A - 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. OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro. OK - MUST: The binary RPM package stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths and therefore calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A - 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. FAIL - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates: %{_datadir}/doc/gnome-globalmenu/ is unowned and will be left behind after uninstalling the package OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line. OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package contains code. N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. OK - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK - 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. Note: The gtk modules are an exception here. OK - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - 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. OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: N/A - 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. OK - SHOULD: The the package builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. FAIL - SHOULD: The package does not function as described. The Xfce4-panel plugin does not work at all here and dual head seems a little buggy. OK - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. OK - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Issues: - License is unclear: Spec says GPLv2+ while package includes GPLv3 as COPYING. Aditionaly the tarball includes two files GPLv2 and GPLv3. If a package has parts that are licensed under different licenses we usually list them all in the spec ("GPLv2 and GPLv3"). If you summarize this as "GPLv2+", you should include the GPLv2+ in the package and you need to be aware of the fact that it also means means "any later version", including GPLv4. - Download the sources again to make sure they really match. Also take care of the timestamps, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps - Docs are incomplete: Include Authors and the correct license(s), but do not include ChangeLog and NEWS as long as they are empty - Docs are installed in the wrong dir: %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/ instead of %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-version/ Just remove %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/ completely during %install and let let rpm take care of installing the docs: ... rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/libgnomenu.la rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-version/ ... %files -f %{name}.lang %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc AUTHORS COPYING GPLv2 GPLv3 README This also fixes the unowned dir mentioned above - remove the "# comment" leftover - What exactly do you want to achieve with the "%if 0%{?rhel5}" statements? Do you want to build the xfce4-panel plugin only on Fedora and RHEL4? - Does the xfce4-panel plugin work for you? For me it does nothing (I'm already on Xfce 4.6, but the panel api has not changed from 4.4) -- 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