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=674006 --- Comment #3 from Rich Mattes <richmattes@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-02 18:50:39 EST --- I found a couple more bundled libraries contained in the git tarball. According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Treatment_Of_Bundled_Libraries, bundled libraries should be deleted explicitly in %prep. This should include - Platform/Linux-x86/Build/Prerequisites/libusb-1.0.8.tar.bz2 - Source/External It also looks like NiSimpleViewer, NiUserTracker, and NiViewer are including their own GL and glut headers. In order to avoid conflicts with the system libs, you should remove those folders and let the samples use the system headers (doing this in %prep is fine) Itâs not a problem now, but if you do add version suffixes to the libraries, youâll probably have to un and re-register the libraries on upgrade. The .so.suffix could change with new api versions. Also, is niReg creating a file somewhere? If so, your package should own it if niReg -u doesnât delete it (so it doesnât get left behind on uninstall). I donât really understand your rationale for leaving the changelog entry different than the package version number. Changelog E-V-R doesnât have anything to do with the source tarball, and the actual version of the package works out to 1.0.0.25-0.2.git4c9ff978. There shouldnât be a .fc14 in there either. + = OK, - = Needs Attention [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint openni.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/openni-* openni.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: openni-1.0.0.25-git4c9ff978.tar.gz openni.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti openni.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US middleware -> middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight openni.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.0.25-0.2git4c9ff978.fc14 ['1.0.0.25-0.2.git4c9ff978.fc14', '1.0.0. 25-0.2.git4c9ff978'] openni.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libOpenNI.so openni.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libnimMockNodes.so openni.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libnimCodecs.so openni.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libNiSampleModule.so openni.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libnimRecorder.so openni.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary niLicense openni.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary niReg openni-samples.x86_64: W: no-documentation openni-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NiCRead openni-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NiConvertXToONI openni-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NiAudioSample openni-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NiViewer openni-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NiBackRecorder openni-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NiUserTracker openni-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NiRecordSynthetic openni-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NiSimpleCreate openni-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NiSimpleRead openni-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NiSimpleViewer 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 22 warnings. [+] 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 . Bundled library and changelog notes above [+] 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. Is there any reason the GPL text is also included? [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [N/A] 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. [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. [+] 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. [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 [+] 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. See above notes. [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. [+] 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. [+] 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. [N/A] 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. 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. [N/A] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [N/A] 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. The niViewer stuff in the samples is creating GUIs, you might want to note that you donât want to include .desktop files. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. -- 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