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=711181 --- Comment #1 from Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-07 18:13:03 EDT --- Here is the full review of the package: * rpmlint: OK rpmlint RPMS/i686/mono-reflection-* SRPMS/mono-reflection-0.1-0.1.201105123git04d1df.fc15.src.rpm SPECS/mono-reflection.spec mono-reflection.i686: E: no-binary mono-reflection.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib -> false positives (mono assemblies are supposed to be in %{_libdir} and they are not recognized as (ELF) binaries) mono-reflection-devel.i686: W: no-documentation -> OK, package does not ship any further API documentation mono-reflection.src: W: invalid-url Source0: mono-reflection-201105123git04d1df.tar.bz2 SPECS/mono-reflection.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: mono-reflection-201105123git04d1df.tar.bz2 -> OK, source obtained via VCS 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. * naming: OK - spec file name matches package name - the upstream name is "mono.reflection" - however, according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Separators the separator for name parts should be "-" so the chosen name is OK * sources: TODO - Source0 tag ok - spectool -g does not work, which is OK for VCS checkouts - I followed exactly the steps from the spec file to create the source tarball, but I get a source package with another md5sum: chkr: b68ba65fbc6ed8db9cf1feea31a1b694 mono-reflection-201105123git04d1df.tar.bz2 spot: 49c3f06edbdb02c5cb4454645824fc15 mono-reflection-201105123git04d1df.tar.bz2 - actually the sources itself match, but the .git directory doesn't which causes the different md5sums - however, there are two problems here: a) .git is packaged b) the steps to re-create the tarball are not referring to a specific revision For my packages I have usually added a small script which creates a "normal" tarball (without any VCS directories) from a specific revision/commit: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=banshee.git;a=blob;f=banshee-make-git-snapshot.sh;h=24847e5154b556bb11e51b2564410fc75d538ddb;hb=HEAD The comment in the spec file is then reduced to something like this: "# sh banshee-make-git-snapshot.sh <gitcommit> <gitdate>" This will ensure that it is always possible to re-create exactly the same tarball. * binaries in upstream sources: TODO - although it is not used during compilation, there is one pre-compiled C# assembly: mono-reflection-201105123git04d1df/Test/target.dll - just to be sure I would delete it in %prep * License: OK - MIT is a Fedora approved License - License in spec file match the actual license (as mentioned in the source files) - Probably you could ask upstream to include a license file. * spec file written in American English and legible: OK * compilation: OK - builds fine in koji: F16/rawhide * BuildRequires: OK * Requires: TODO - the -devel package should use the fully versioned arch-specific dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} * bundled copies of system libraries: OK (n/a) * locales handling: OK (n/a) * ldconfig in %post and %postun: OK (n/a) * package owns all directories that it creates: OK * %files section: OK * no files listed twice in %files: OK * file permissions: OK * macro usage: OK * code vs. content: OK (no content) * main package should not contain development related parts: OK * large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a) * header files in -devel subpackage: OK (n/a) * static libraries in -static package: OK (n/a) * *.so link in -devel package: OK (n/a) * devel package requires base package using fully versioned dependency: OK * packages must not contain *.la files: OK (n/a) * GUI applications must provide *.desktop file: OK (n/a) * packages must not own files/dirs already owned by other packages: OK * all filenames UTF-8: OK * debuginfo sub-package: OK (n/a) Summary of the open issues: - better (reproducible) creation of the tarball from git repository - deleting all pre-compiled binaries/assemblies in %prep - use of fully versioned dependency in Requires: -- 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