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=548694 --- Comment #4 from James Laska <jlaska@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-05 17:22:05 EDT --- I've reviewed the package according to the review guidelines (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines). Results are posted below. Please address the outstanding issues noted by "NOT OK". # MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in # the review.[1] OK (see attached patch) $ rpmlint python-rpmfluff-0.3-2.fc12.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python-rpmfluff-0.3-2.fc12.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python-rpmfluff.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # 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 meet the Packaging Guidelines . 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] OK # 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. NOT OK $ curl https://fedorahosted.org/releases/r/p/rpmfluff/rpmfluff-0.3.tar.bz2 | md5sum b349770877d43d9fd71d53ece24a4165 $ rpm -ivh https://fedorahosted.org/releases/r/p/rpmfluff/python-rpmfluff-0.3-1.fc10.src.rpm 1:python-rpmfluff ########################################### [100%] $ md5sum /tmp/jlaska-rpm/SOURCES/rpmfluff-0.3.tar.bz2 db40cf13beb5241835d9256a90e998be /tmp/jlaska-rpm/SOURCES/rpmfluff-0.3.tar.bz2 # MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at # least one primary architecture. [7] OK (tested on x86_64) # 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in # bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work # on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the # corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] N/A # 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. OK If you wish to change to using python distutils, you may wish to add BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel # MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the # %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] 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. [10] N/A # MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is # considered a blocker. [12] N/A # 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. [13] OK - with included patch # MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's # %files listings. [14] 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. [15] OK - with included patch to change 0644 for rpmfluff.py # MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf # %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16] OK # MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17] OK # MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18] 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). [19] N/A # 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. [19] OK # MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20] N/A # MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21] N/A # MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [22] 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. [20] 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} [23] N/A # MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be # removed in the spec if they are built.[21] 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. 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. [24] N/A # MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other # packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed # should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This # means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership # with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. # If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that # another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [25] N/A # MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} # (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26] OK # MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27] OK # 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. [28] OK # SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should # contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [29] # SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [30] OK (using koji scratch build) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1904152 # SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all # supported architectures. [31] OK (noarch) # SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A # package should not segfault instead of running, for example. OK (tested using rpmguard) # SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, # and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [32] N/A # SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package # using a fully versioned dependency. [23] 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. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not # installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [22] 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. [33] OK -- 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