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=642208 amorilia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |amorilia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | |net --- Comment #1 from amorilia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2010-12-28 09:16:28 EST --- Beware, this is my very first package review. Feedback on the review by a more experienced packager is welcome, particularly if I missed any crucial steps. [+] OK [!] Needs to be looked into [/] Not applicable [*] Overridden by MinGW guidelines Rpmlint ------- $ rpmlint mingw32-win-iconv.spec mingw32-win-iconv.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://win-iconv.googlecode.com/files/win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint mingw32-win-iconv-0.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm mingw32-win-iconv.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://win-iconv.googlecode.com/files/win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Harmless warning, URL works: $ wget http://win-iconv.googlecode.com/files/win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2 --2010-12-28 11:15:59-- http://win-iconv.googlecode.com/files/win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2 Resolving win-iconv.googlecode.com... 209.85.229.82 Connecting to win-iconv.googlecode.com|209.85.229.82|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 17338 (17K) [application/x-bzip2] Saving to: âwin-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2â 100%[======================================>] 17,338 --.-K/s in 0.1s 2010-12-28 11:16:00 (165 KB/s) - âwin-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2â saved [17338/17338] $ rpm -i mingw32-win-iconv-0.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm $ md5sum win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2 22ee1bbaae404fe34dca835f1c669a1e win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2 $ md5sum ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2 22ee1bbaae404fe34dca835f1c669a1e /home/amorilia/rpmbuild/SOURCES/win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2 $ diff mingw32-win-iconv.spec ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/mingw32-win-iconv.spec -s Files mingw32-win-iconv.spec and /home/amorilia/rpmbuild/SPECS/mingw32-win-iconv.spec are identical $ rpmbuild -ba mingw32-win-iconv.spec ... Build succeeds. $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-win-iconv-0.0.1-1.fc14.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo-0.0.1-1.fc14.noarch.rpm mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-win-iconv-static-0.0.1-1.fc14.noarch.rpm mingw32-win-iconv-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libiconv.a mingw32-win-iconv-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Looks fine, follows MinGW guidelines. Dependencies ------------ $ su -c 'yum install mingw32-iconv*' $ rpm -qa | grep mingw32-iconv mingw32-iconv-static-1.12-12.fc12.noarch mingw32-iconv-debuginfo-1.12-12.fc12.noarch mingw32-iconv-1.12-12.fc12.noarch $ su -c 'rpm -Uv /home/amorilia/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-win-iconv*.rpm' Preparing packages for installation... mingw32-win-iconv-0.0.1-1.fc14 mingw32-win-iconv-static-0.0.1-1.fc14 mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo-0.0.1-1.fc14 $ rpm -qa | grep mingw32-iconv mingw32-iconv-debuginfo-1.12-12.fc12.noarch [!] mingw32-iconv-debuginfo-1.12-12.fc12.noarch should have been removed. $ rpmquery --requires mingw32-win-iconv rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 mingw32-filesystem >= 63 mingw32-runtime mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 $ rpmquery --provides mingw32-win-iconv mingw32-iconv = 1.12-13.fc14 mingw32(libiconv.dll) mingw32-win-iconv = 0.0.1-1.fc14 $ rpmquery --requires mingw32-win-iconv-static mingw32-win-iconv = 0.0.1-1.fc14 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 mingw32-filesystem >= 63 mingw32-runtime rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 $ rpmquery --provides mingw32-win-iconv-static mingw32-iconv-static = 1.12-13.fc14 mingw32-win-iconv-static = 0.0.1-1.fc14 $ rpmquery --requires mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 mingw32-filesystem >= 63 mingw32-runtime rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Does not require mingw32-win-iconv, but apparently native debuginfos are similar, so I guess this is fine. $ rpmquery --provides mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo = 0.0.1-1.fc14 [!] Must also provide mingw32-iconv-debuginfo = 1.12-13.fc14 $ mock -r fedora-14-x86_64 ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mingw32-win-iconv-0.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm $ mock -r fedora-14-i386 ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mingw32-win-iconv-0.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Both work. Testing ------- $ wget http://win-iconv.googlecode.com/svn-history/r10/trunk/win_iconv_test.c and apply this patch: http://code.google.com/p/win-iconv/issues/detail?id=2 $ i686-pc-mingw32-gcc win_iconv_test.c -liconv $ ./a.exe All tests pass $ i686-pc-mingw32-gcc win_iconv_test.c -Wl,-Bstatic -liconv $ ./a.exe All tests pass ================================= Fedora MinGW Packaging Guidelines ================================= [/] Track Fedora native package versions: stay at same version, include all the same patches as the native Fedora package, and be built with the same configuration options. [+] Packages named by prefixing upstream package name with mingw32- [+] Use of standard mingw RPM macros %{_mingw32_xxx} [/] Dll dependencies expressed as mingw32(*.dll) [+] Dependencies: %global _use_internal_dependency_generator 0 %global __find_requires %{_mingw32_findrequires} %global __find_provides %{_mingw32_findprovides} [+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= xx [+] BuildArch: noarch [+] All files are installed in %{_mingw32_sysroot} [+] .dll in %{_mingw32_bindir}, .dll.a (and .la and .a where applicable) in %{_mingw32_libdir} [/] No man and info files which are already in Fedora native package [+] Static libraries in -static subpackage [+] Stripping: %global __strip %{_mingw32_strip} %global __objdump %{_mingw32_objdump} Not in guidelines, but seems to be policy: [+] Debuginfo: %define __debug_install_post %{_mingw32_debug_install_post} %{_mingw32_debug_package} [!] Package does not contain .exe files. Contains %{_mingw32_bindir}/win_iconv.exe; is this required for the MinGW compile stack? =========================== Fedora Packaging Guidelines =========================== [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] 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. readme.txt contains license [+] 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. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [+] 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. [+] 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: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [*] 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. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [/] 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: 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. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] 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. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [/] 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). [+] 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. [*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [*] 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: In the vast majority of cases, 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. [/] 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. [/] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [/] 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. [/] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Build tested on i386 and x86_64. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [/] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [/] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [/] 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. [/] 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. [/] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. Summary of issues ----------------- * I could be missing something, but win_iconv.exe should probably be removed from the package as it is not required to compile against iconv. * Somehow, mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo should provide mingw32-iconv-debuginfo, so mingw32-iconv-debuginfo gets deleted when installing mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo. * Not really an issue, but a new version is available upstream (0.0.2), which also includes the static compile patch. * A final obvious comment: the original mingw32-iconv package exposes more (but non-standard) functions, so switching to mingw32-win-iconv breaks applications that rely on these non-standard extensions. As indicated by Erik, this is intentional, and no serious problems are expected? -- 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