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=495902 --- Comment #12 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-05 05:26:03 EDT --- REVIEW FOR a114ac5ea879e928955eec89863f9009 olpc-kbdshim-6-1.src.rpm OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/olpc-kbdshim-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 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. FIX - MUST: The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines, explained below. OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+ OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches 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 (could be a little better though) N/A - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by MD5 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. N/A - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro. N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call 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. OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates: none except in docdir. 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, or permissable content. 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. N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. 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. N/A - 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. TBD - SHOULD: The package functions as described. N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - 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: - MINOR: BuildRoot: should be %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag (minor, but for a new package we should do this properly I think) - MAJOR: BuildArch: i386 is wrong, I think you want %{ix86} or no BuildArch at all. - MAJOR: Requires: hal is missing for proper function and dir ownership - MINOR: Description: line breaks at 80 characters - MAJOR: RPM_OPT_FLAGS not honored: cc -Wall -O2 -g -DVERSION=6 $(pkg-config --cflags hal) $(pkg-config --cflags glib-2.0) $(pkg-config --cflags dbus-glib-1) olpc-kbdshim-hal.c $(pkg-config --libs hal) $(pkg-config --libs glib-2.0) $(pkg-config --libs dbus-glib-1) -o olpc-kbdshim-hal cc -Wall -O2 -g -DVERSION=6 olpc-kbdshim.c -o olpc-kbdshim - MAJOR: Preserve timestamps during install by adding "-p", see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps Questions: - Is the non-hal version still developed? If so, this package should be named olpc-kbdshim-hal, so that both version could be packaged - Is there any way to tag or mark the checkouts, so we can later get a specific version and verify it's md5? For a git snapshot this package is not named properly, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages - How can I test the program's functionality? I'm especially interested in the brightness because this is something I need for LXDE and Xfce as well. -- 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