[Bug 492203] Review Request: frinika - Music Workstation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=492203





--- Comment #4 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  2009-06-30 12:11:47 EDT ---
Here is the review:

 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing

MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
rpmlint silent
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[=] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
# src/SevenZip is LGPLv2+ or CPL
# The rest is GPLv2+
License:          GPLv2+ and (LGPLv2+ or CPL)
but changelog says what SevenZip now not included. So, I think license shoild
be GPLv2+ now only.
[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Package include dreamfabric Dknob component
http://www.dreamfabric.com/java/knob/knob.html this is not mention any license
in sourse. License text also not included. Did you contact with author and ask
license?

Also petersalomonsen component included. License there same GPLv2+, but it is
not acceptable bundle any (source or compiled JARs) components in package:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software

all such components must be separate packaged and reviewed.

[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.

No.
Package contains script to fetch source from SVN (frinika-snapshot.sh), but it
revision number not provided. And you should add comment how you get source. In
you case it may be simple note about proper usage of frinika-snapshot.sh. It
must be command to copy/paste reproduce.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control

One hint, instead of do "svn checkout" ("svn co") and then delete .svn
directory, you may do just "svn export"

Also other sources must have comment where it placed. Please refer to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Referencing_Source whan link
is not accesable.

[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
Build successful - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1444150
[+] 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.
This is noarch package.
[-] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
BuildRequires: ant
missing. You provide ant into build-jar-repository, so, its needed.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.

Package does not have locale files.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
No shared library files here.
[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
I think package is not relocatable.
[+] MUST: 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.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[=] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
There only may be considered move examples into separate subpackage. But its
have small size, and I do not require it.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
No header files, this is java package
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
No static libraries.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
No such files.
[+] 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.
No libraries.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
Devel package absent.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
[+] 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.
COPYING file included.
[=] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Built in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1444150
[=] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Error: Missing Dependency: SevenZip is needed by package
frinika-0.5.1-3.521svn.fc11.noarch (/frinika-0.5.1-3.521svn.fc11.noarch)
Error: Missing Dependency: tootaudioservers >= 3 is needed by package
frinika-0.5.1-3.521svn.fc11.noarch (/frinika-0.5.1-3.521svn.fc11.noarch)

This dependencies is only in rawhide?

[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[+] 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.
A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
[+] 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.
[+] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.

Additionals:
Must:
[-] Patches. Each included patch must have link to upstream bagtracker or
comment why it can't be done.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PatchUpstreamStatus
Should:
[=] I think in command:
ln -s %{_libdir}/flexdock/flexdock-0.5.1.jar lib/flexdock.jar || \ 
Will be cool replace "0.5.1" by something like %{version}


Please correct these issues.

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]