[Bug 226079] Merge Review: libxml2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=226079

Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?                   |

--- Comment #23 from Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-17 10:15:55 EST ---
Created attachment 469394
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=469394
commented output of fedpkg lint

(In reply to comment #21)
> Side note, could you point Toshio Kuratomi to XML specification appendix F.
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-guessing-with-ext-info

Just a side-note before doing a proper review ... the reason why you are right
and Toshio is (in this question) most likely wrong is that he considers XML
files as text files. They are clearly not, because one of the main important
characteristics of plain text files is exactly this ... they don't have
encoding metada. However, every XML has stated encoding (defaulting to UTF-8 if
missing). IMHO, XML files don't need to be touched.

Anyway, now the proper review (based on clone of the Fedora git):

- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review

Complete commented output of fedpkg lint has been attached. Here is only the
summary:

 * Removing executable bits from examples, tests, and chvalid.c
 * Running tests in %check
 * Not sure about /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/libxml2mod.so providing
libxml2mod.so()(64bit)
 * See in the patch fix for libxml2mod.a being in the non-static package.

+ MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
+ MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used

I have on idea why %makeinstall is used, when

make install DESTDIR=%{?buildroot}

works apparently as well.

+ MUST: The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines
+ MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license
License: MIT
+ 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.
+ MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
+ 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
>From srpm:
8127a65e8c3b08856093099b52599c86  libxml2-2.7.8.tar.gz
8127a65e8c3b08856093099b52599c86  libxml2-2.7.8.tar.gz.new
= MATCHES
+ MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture
 - was builded many times in koji, but just to be sure my patch doesn't break
anything, here is another scratch build
 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2673167
0 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
+ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
Build in koji
0 MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro
No locales
0 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.
Not appllicable
0 MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
0 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
+ MUST: 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
+ MUST: Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings
+ MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line.
+ MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ MUST: Each package must consistently use macros
+ MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content
0 MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
+ MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application
+ MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
+ MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
+ MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
+ 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
+ MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built
0 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
+ MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages
+ MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
+ MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

Please, fix rpmlint warnings, otherwise everything is perfect.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]