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=625602 Alex Lancaster <alexl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Alex Lancaster <alexl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-21 00:20:46 EDT --- Looks good. Please check my notes on things to fix post-checkin (particularly the SourceURL stuff), otherwise: APPROVED Full review follows: x = passes review item - = fails review item, package approval blocked until resolution ? = query that can be resolved after approval, not a blocker N/A = not applicable to this package MUST items: [ ? ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/libbluray-* ~/RPMS/SRPMS/libbluray-0.1-0.1.20100819.fc13.src.rpm libbluray.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bluray -> blurry, blurt, blurb libbluray.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US embeddable -> embedding, embedded, shreddable libbluray.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mplayer -> player, m player, mp layer libbluray.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vlc -> vac, voc, Vlad libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819 0775L libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/debug 0775L libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/libbluray/bdj/native 0775L libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/libbluray/bdnav 0775L libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/libbluray/hdmv 0775L libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/libbluray/decoders 0775L libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/util 0775L libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/libbluray 0775L libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/libbluray/bdj 0775L libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/file 0775L libbluray.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bluray -> blurry, blurt, blurb libbluray.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US embeddable -> embedding, embedded, shreddable libbluray.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mplayer -> player, m player, mp layer libbluray.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vlc -> vac, voc, Vlad libbluray.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %Y libbluray.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %m libbluray.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %d libbluray.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %Y libbluray.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %m libbluray.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %d libbluray.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libbluray-20100819.tar.bz2 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 15 warnings. Can you look into the debuginfo errors? not sure if they need to be fixed or not. Regarding the macros-in-comment warning, can probably ignore that, as well the spelling-error's. [ x ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [ x ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...] [ x ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [ x ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines Licensed under LGPLv2+, headers contain: * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either * version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. so clearly LGPLv2+, which matches spec file [ x ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license COPYING contains text of LGPL version 2.1 [ x ] 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 [ x ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [ x ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [ ? ] 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. Can't test the MD5 checksums because the git command will check out a different version of the code than the one uploaded in the SRPM, unless the git command in the spec uses the same date as %{tarball_date}. Make sure that %{tarball_date} is adjusted correctly at the time of checkin. [ x ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture Koji scratch build for rawhide finishes successfully: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2545698 [ 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. 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 Compiles on all supported arches [ x ] 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. Koji build indicates that BR's are sufficient, also look sensible by inspection. [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden Not needed, no locale files [ x ] 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. [ x ] MUST: Packages must 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [ x ] 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. [ x ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [ x ] 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. [ x ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ x ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [ x ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [ x ] 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). Reasonable amount of docs in -devel package, amount seems sensible. [ x ] 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. [ x ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [ ? ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. Seems that generating a static package is optional, is this intentional? [ x ] 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. [ x ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [ x ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [ 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. [ x ] 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. [ x ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ x ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD items: [ x ] 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. [ x ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Builds in koji (see above) [ x ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Builds in koji (see above) [ x ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. xbmc (from RPM Fusion) correctly links against libbluray, don't have discs to test, unfortunately. [ x ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [ N/A ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [ x ] 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. [ 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. [ N/A ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. -- 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