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=578290 --- Comment #4 from Klaus Grue <grue@xxxxxxx> 2010-04-10 02:47:17 EDT --- Here is the pre-review. It is my first pre-review. M. Tasaka has promised to take a look at it. There are quite a number of open points in it where I don't know what to do. I have built the source RPM for x86_64 and i386. Running rpmlint on the binary packages causes no complaints. Below I go through http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines step by step (rather mechanical - sorry - but I hope that is a reasonable way to start). Below, "you" means "the packager". For each comment I make below I have added one of the following attributes after the comment: ACTION The packager must do or say something QUESTION I am in doubt what to do here OK Selfexplanatory MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. > I should mention that if you run rpmlint on the SRPM, > you will get several warnings about spelling errors > in the Swedish description, referring to words from > the English description. From what I can tell, this > is because of some bug in rpm, see bug 578299. I only get two erros from rpmlint: > mj.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install > You should clean $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the %clean > section and in the beginning of the %install section. > Use "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT". Some rpm configurations > do this automatically; if your package is only going > to be built in such configurations, you can ignore > this warning for the section(s) where your rpm > takes care of it. > mj.src: W: no-buildroot-tag > The BuildRoot tag isn't used in your spec. It must > be used in order to allow building the package as > non root on some systems. For some rpm versions (e.g. > rpm.org >= 4.6) the BuildRoot tag is not necessary > in specfiles and is ignored by rpmbuild; if your > package is only going to be built with such rpm > versions you can ignore this warning. Could you take a look at that? [[NOTE: "you" means the packager in the line above, i.e. Göran Uddeborg, not Mamoru Tasaka]] ACTION MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Naming guidelines are met. But 'mj' is a *very* short name. There are only 26^2=676 package names which consist of two, small letters, so I suppose such names are reserved. The name matches the upstream tar-ball (mj-1.10-src.tar.gz). Do you think upstream would be willing to change name to e.g. mahjong-1.10 or mahjongg-1.10? Those names do not appear to be taken yet. In particular, /usr/bin/mahjongg belongs to gnome-games-2.26.3-1.fc11.x86_64. ACTION MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. The application is written in C but uses neither $RPM_OPT_FLAGS nor %{optflags} ACTION http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage says that one should use desktop-file-install (mj.spec does that) and should also BuildRequire desktop-file-utils (mj.spec doesn't) ACTION http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define says that you should use %global instead of %define, unless you really need only locally defined submacros within other macro definitions (a very rare case). mj.spec contains two instances of %define. Is that needed? ACTION Consider using cp -p ../tiles-v1/tong* . rather than cp ../tiles-v1/tong* . c.f. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps ACTION MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. License in upstream tar file: > The programs are distributed under the GNU General > Public License, version 2, or at your discretion > any later version. Part of the upstream tar file, however, is non-GNU. The mj.spec file says: # The bundled tiles have a non-commercial-use license. So instead we # use GPL tiles from kdegames instead. The solution was suggested by # Tom 'spot' Callaway in: # http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2010-February/001109.html As mentioned in tiles-v1/README it is questionable whether or not the bundled tiles have a non-commercial-use license. Thus it is questionable whether or not the tiles can be GNU GPL. Tom 'spot' Callaway says the tiles are not GNU GPL. Using GPL tiles from kdegames as indicated above seems like a good idea. That guarantees that the tiles used are GPL. But then I suppose the tiles-v1/ directory should be removed from the source package since otherwise the source package will contain tiles which are not GNU GPL. ACTION The upstream .c and .h files refer to the LICENSE file for license information except lazyfixed.c, lazyfixed.h, vlazyfixed.c, and vlazyfixed.h which refer to GNU Lesser General Public License (any version). Is that a problem? QUESTION In upstream .c and .h files, the author claims moral rights. Does that have any effect? I found something here: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/contributor_agreement.jsp#r_3 3. Q: The SCA requires that I agree not to assert my "moral rights." What are moral rights? A: Moral rights are additional rights of the creators of copyrighted works recognized in some jurisdictions, and intended to protect the relationship between an artist and his or her work. These rights remain in place even after ownership of the work is shared or transferred. Moral rights typically only apply to visual or artistic works, and not to utilitarian works such as software. They may prohibit the alteration or mutilation of a work, may protect the author's right of attribution or anonymous publication, and in general govern the artistic integrity of a creative work. It would be unusual for moral rights to apply to an open-source contribution, but in the event they do and you live in a jurisdiction that recognizes moral rights, when you sign the SCA you agree not to assert them with respect to your contributions. QUESTION MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Spec file license: > License: GPLv2+ 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. File LICENSE is included in %doc OK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. It is. Description and summary are provided in Swedish also. The Swedish description and summary matches the American English ones. OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. It is. 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. Downloaded from http://mahjong.julianbradfield.org/Source/mj-1.10-src.tar.gz: f9bacf9fd6743d5e3a2fd86863607ce2 mj-1.10-src.tar.gz In source rpm: f9bacf9fd6743d5e3a2fd86863607ce2 mj-1.10-src.tar.gz OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Compiles and builds successfully for fc11/x86_64 and fc11/i586. OK 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. I am unable to test PPC. What shall I do? QUESTION 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. Must be OK since it builds in a chroot jail using mock. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. The spec file does not handle locales at all. 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. The RPM package defines no shared libraries. OK MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 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] %prep replaces non-GNU-GPL tiles with tiles found at /usr/share/kde4/apps/kmahjongglib/tilesets/default.svgz Apart from that, /usr is neither hardcoded in mj.spec nor in the Makefiles. OK 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. The package uses these directories without creating them: Directory Owner /usr/bin/ filesystem-2.4.21-1.fc11.x86_64 /usr/share/applications/ filesystem-2.4.21-1.fc11.x86_64 /usr/share/doc/ filesystem-2.4.21-1.fc11.x86_64 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/ hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch /usr/share/man/man1/ policycoreutils-2.0.62-12.14.fc11.x86_64 How can I find out if one needs to require hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch and policycoreutils-2.0.62-12.14.fc11.x86_64 ? QUESTION MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. 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. rpm -qlv mj -rwxr-xr-x root root /usr/bin/mj-player -rwxr-xr-x root root /usr/bin/mj-server -rwxr-xr-x root root /usr/bin/xmj -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/applications/mj.desktop drwxr-xr-x root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10 -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/CHANGES -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/ChangeLog -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/LICENCE -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/README -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/rules.txt -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/use.txt -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/mj.png -r--r--r-- root root /usr/share/man/man1/mj-player.1.gz -r--r--r-- root root /usr/share/man/man1/mj-server.1.gz -r--r--r-- root root /usr/share/man/man1/xmj.1.gz Why are man pages not user writable? ACTION MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. As far as I can see, mj.spec uses macros consistently. Is that what is asked for here? Is there something particular to look for? Is this a question of using either $RPM_OPT_FLAGS or %{optflags}? In that case, mj.spec uses the %{optflags} style consistently and '$RPM' does not occur anywhere in mj.spec. QUESTION MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 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). Documentation consists of 25653 bytes rules.txt 41244 bytes use.txt 22311 bytes xmj.1.gz 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. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. The package installs no .h files. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. The package installs no static libraries. 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. The package installs no .so files. OK 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: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK 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. OK 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. OK MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). It does not. As mentioned previously, rpmlint complains about it. ACTION MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 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. The source package has a LICENSE file. The LICENSE file contains license info followed by the GNU GPL license. OK SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Description and summary is available in English and Swedish. The Mahjong program itself seems to support English only. OK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Done for x86_64 and i386. OK SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. I cannot test PPC. QUESTION SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. The x86_64 version seems to run fine. OK SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. OK SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. There are no subpackages. 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. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. There are no such files. 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. The package only BuildRequire packages. OK SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. Man pages are included for all three binaries (xmj, mj-player, and mj-server). 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review