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=508318 --- Comment #15 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-17 17:59:52 EDT --- SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/mutter.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/mutter-2.27.1-1.fc11.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1483173 I think everything is fixed except the desktop file bit and the SHOULD_HAVE_DEFINED section which I'll update in the morning but the rest is now updated and it builds :-) (In reply to comment #12) > [OK] * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be > posted in the review.[1] > > ON SRPM: > > rpmlint /tmp/mutter-2.27.0-0.2.20090626gita13dec3.fc11.src.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > On RPM: > > mutter.i586: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.27.0-0.2 > ['2.27.0-0.2.20090626gita13dec3.fc11', '2.27.0-0.2.20090626gita13dec3'] > > Doesn't matter, we'll have real tarballs soon anyways. > > mutter.i586: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libmutter-private.so.0.0.0 > exit@xxxxxxxxx > > None of rpmlint's damn business (libmutter-private has meta_exit, meta_fatal > utility functions in it.) > > mutter.i586: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/mutter.schemas > > OK. > > [OK] * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming > Guidelines . > [OK] * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the > format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . > [OK] * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and > meet the Licensing Guidelines . > [OK] * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the > actual license. [3] > [OK] * 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.[4] > [OK] * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] > [OK] * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] > [XX] * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream > source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. > If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL > Guidelines for how to deal with this. > > Source: should be > http://download.gnome.org/sources/mutter/2.27/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 Fixed. > [XX] * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary > rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] > > Looks like the file list is out of sync with recent mutter changes; removing > files that are no longer in Mutter and adding .po file handling, it seems to > build OK. Fixed. > [NA] * 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. > [XX] * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except > for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; > inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. > > From reading the configure.in, missing BuildRequires I can find: > > gir-repository-devel > libXcomposite-devel > libSM-devel Added. Fixed. > [XX] * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by > using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly > forbidden.[9] > > Not OK, no handling of .po files. Added in. Fixed. > [OK] * 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. [10] > [OK] * 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. > [XX] * 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. [12] > > File list has: %{_libdir}/mutter/plugins/clutter/*.so and doesn't own any of > the parent directories. (Current mutter removes the clutter/ part of this). > Probably should just have %{_datadir}/mutter in the file list. > > Needs to Requires: control-center-filesystem for > /usr/share/gnome/wm-properties/ Fixed. > [OK] * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the > spec file's %files listings. [13] > [OK] * 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. [14] > [OK] * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section > [OK] * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] > [OK] * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] > [OK] * MUST: Large documentation files must 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). [18] > [OK] * MUST: 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. [18] > [OK] * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] > [NA] * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] > [OK] * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: > pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [21] > [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. [19] > [OK] * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the > base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = > %{version}-%{release} [22] > [OK] * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must > be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] > [XX] * 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. 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. [23] > > Should be using desktop-file-install (the metacity package has > desktop-file-install usage commented out, with a comment that the .desktop file > is invalid, but mutter.desktop seems fine) Not fixed yet. I will update it tomorrow. > [OK] * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by > other packages. > [OK] * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25] > [OK] * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26] > > [NA] * 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. > [27] > [NA] * SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file > should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [28] > [NT] * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [29] > [NT] * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all > supported architectures. [30] > [??] * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as > described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. > > Got a white screen in a quick test of 'mutter --replace', but it's a slightly > old version of Mutter, so didn't investigate further. Will be testing this on my eeePC over the weekend. > [OK] * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This > is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [31] > [OK] * SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency. [22] > [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. > [OK] * 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. [32] > > Packaging guidelines: > > Other notes: > > - Should not run autogen.sh (and some of the BuildRequires: thus aren't > needed: libotool, automake, autoconf, gnome-common0) Was only there because of the use of a git snapshot while waiting for proper release. Fixed. > - Although it makes the specfile more complex, I think the check in > metacity.spec: > > SHOULD_HAVE_DEFINED="HAVE_SM HAVE_XINERAMA HAVE_XFREE_XINERAMA HAVE_SHAPE > HAVE_RANDR HAVE_STARTUP_NOTIFICATION" > > for I in $SHOULD_HAVE_DEFINED; do > if ! grep -q "define $I" config.h; then > echo "$I was not defined in config.h" > grep "$I" config.h > exit 1 > else > echo "$I was defined as it should have been" > grep "$I" config.h > fi > done > > Is probably worthwhile moving over. (And add HAVE_COMPOSITE_EXTENSION) > > - From the metacity.rpm, looking at the patches: > > Patch0: default-theme.patch > > Not needed - we share schemas with metacity > > # http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=558723 > Patch4: stop-spamming-xsession-errors.patch > # http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135056 > Patch5: dnd-keynav.patch > # http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584723 > Patch6: no-lame-dialog.patch > > All affect Mutter, but I'll take care of getting them fixed upstream, so > let's not include them here. OK. > - You should > > export GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTALL=1 > make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT > unset GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTALL > > Or it will try to install the schemas into the system database on the build > system. Fixed. > - I removed dependency of this bug on gjs (not needed for Mutter by itself), > added dependency on getting clutter built with gobject-introspection support It can always be compiled against it at a later point. > - Here's my stab at a good %description > > %description > Mutter is a window and compositing manager that displays and manages > your desktop via OpenGL. Mutter combines a sophisticated display engine > using the Clutter toolkit with solid window-management logic inherited > from the Metacity window manager. > > While Mutter can be used stand-alone, it is primarily intended to be > used as the display core of a larger system such as gnome-shell or > Moblin. For this reason, Mutter is very extensible via plugins, which > are used both to add fancy visual efects and to rework the window > management behaviors to meet the needs of the environment. > > A bit too much about Mutter technically and not enough about why you want to > install Mutter, but should do. (And will most likely be sitting their unchanged > in 10 years no matter what else has happened in the meantime....) :-) Updated. > - And a %description for -devel: > > Header files and libraries for developing Mutter plugins. Also includes > utilities for testing Metacity/Mutter themes. Updated. > And finally: > > - While I was writing this, I was simultaneously getting mutter to 'make > distcheck' succesfully. I've now uploaded a 2.27.1 tarball. It should appear at > > http://download.gnome.org/sources/mutter/2.27/ > > once ftp.gnome.org finishes syncing. Updated. -- 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