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=555018 --- Comment #18 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-29 08:52:58 EDT --- REVIEW FOR 9fc296dc43daf7434c85f796c3ce4186 gnac-0.2.2-1.fc13.src.rpm FIX - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/gnac-* gnac.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install gnac.src: W: no-buildroot-tag gnac.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnac.schemas gnac-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. The first two warnings can be ignored, however I prefer to add both the BuildRoot tag as well as 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' at the beginning of %install for compatibility with older rpm version, but this is up to you. The 3rd warning can be ignored as well, gconf files are no config files but templates for the per-user files. The error about the missing debuginfo needs to be fixed though (see below). 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+) OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license (Note that COPYING is GPLv3, but the headers are GPLv2+, so I assume COPYING is wrong.) 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 da02008960c79f31a558008b9fd74d70 OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 N/A - 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. OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 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: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries. N/A - 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. OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage 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, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly validated with desktop-file-validate in the %install section. OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: functions as described. FIX - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane (gconf scriptlets need to be updated, see below). N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid FIX - Compiler flags ok FIX - Debuginfo complete Issues: - Fix rpmlint as described above. For more info on the issue of the missing sources in the debuginfo package see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo I haven't investigated it, but it is most likely due to the compiler flags not being honored. - Please use the new gconf macros from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GConf - Please change %{_mandir}/man1/gnac.1.gz to %{_mandir}/man1/gnac.1.* so the extension .gz is not hardcoded. We might switch to bz2 or xz compressed manpages some day. - Bug upstream about including a copy of GPLv2 instead of GPLv3 or change the headers accordingly. - the timestamp of the source tarball in the srpm doesn't match the original one, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps - I agree with Michael that the nonfree mimetypes in the desktop file and profiles in /usr/share/gnac/profiles should be removed from the package. For the desktop file you can use desktop-file-install instead of desktop-file-validate and the xml files can be removed at the end of the %install section. I will then make a gnac-freeworld package at rpmfusion that provides a hidden desktop file with the mimetypes, the profiles and requires the necessary plugins. Sounds fair? -- 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