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=506833 --- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-06 18:34:30 EDT --- The spec at http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/bisho.spec does not match the one in the package. mux-devel is missing. mux-devel is also missing from the rawhide repo. Looking at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8679 it looks a little messed up: Why is the package locked? And why did you build it for F9??? Anyway, starting the REVIEW for 6cfb7ae0d1ea8fcd504ff89f50a32079 bisho-0.10.2-1.fc11.src.rpm TBD - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. OK - MUST: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: Spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+ FAIL - MUST: License field in spec file doesn't match the actual license: It's GPLv2+, not GPLv2. Looking at the source you will find "... or any later version" OK - MUST: License file included in %doc OK - MUST: Spec is in American English OK - MUST: Spec is legible OK - MUST: Sources match the upstream source by MD5 f0b354455eabc021045920123198fcd9 OK - MUST: Successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 OK - MUST: No ExcludeArch OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, but you are listing a couple of redundant deps that get already pulled in by other packages: OK - MUST: Handles locales properly with %find_lang 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. OK - MUST: Not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: Owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: No duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: Consistently uses macros OK - MUST: Package contains code, or permissable content OK - MUST: No large docs 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. FAIL - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file, but that file is not properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. OK - MUST: packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: all filenames 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. TBD - SHOULD: The the package doesn't build in mock because mux is not available. TBD - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. TBD - SHOULD: The package functions as described. FAIL - SHOULD: Scriptlets are not sane. You are running gtk-update-icon-cache only in %post. 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. Other items: OK - Latest stable version packaged OK - RPM_OPT_FLAGS honored Issues: - Fix the license tag - Drop 'Requires(post): /bin/touch', explained in bug 507480 - Drop the redundant BuildRequires, it's no use listing them: glib2-devel, pkgconfig are pulled in be nearly every devel package, autoconf and automake are required by libtool. - The comment "Require these because ..." is misleading. gnome-common is (likely) needed and gettext/intltool are needed because of the locales. So all that is actually required to run autogen.sh is libtool. Please change the comment to reflect this. - Timestamps are nor preserved during %install, add "INSTALL='install -p'" to make install, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps - Update icon-cache scriptlet with latest version from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache - What libtool archives are you trying to remove? There are none! - AUTHORS and TODO are missing from %doc. Don't add NEWS and README (empty) or ChangeLog (not useful) - Use desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate for the desktop file, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage Please fix the issues and contact rel-eng in order to get mux into the repo. Once this is done, I will finish this review. -- 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