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=675557 --- Comment #29 from Björn Persson <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-30 21:00:44 EDT --- Generic MUST Items: · rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. → OK. None of the warnings are real problems: matreshka.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grapheme -> ephemera matreshka.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes matreshka.src:143: W: macro-in-comment %{GPRbuild_optflags} matreshka.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grapheme -> ephemera matreshka.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes matreshka.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/libleague.so.0.1.1 matreshka.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grapheme -> ephemera matreshka.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes matreshka.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libleague.so.0.1.1 matreshka-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/matreshka-0.1.1/.objs matreshka-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/matreshka-0.1.1/.objs matreshka-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/matreshka-0.1.1/.objs matreshka-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/matreshka-0.1.1/.objs matreshka-fastcgi.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libmatreshka-fastcgi.so.0.1.1 /usr/lib/libgnarl-4.6.so matreshka-fastcgi.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/libmatreshka-fastcgi.so.0.1.1 matreshka-fastcgi.i686: W: no-documentation matreshka-fastcgi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmatreshka-fastcgi.so.0.1.1 /usr/lib64/libgnarl-4.6.so matreshka-fastcgi.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libmatreshka-fastcgi.so.0.1.1 matreshka-fastcgi.x86_64: W: no-documentation matreshka-fastcgi-devel.i686: W: no-documentation matreshka-fastcgi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation matreshka-sql-core.i686: W: no-documentation matreshka-sql-core.x86_64: W: no-documentation matreshka-sql-core-devel.i686: W: no-documentation matreshka-sql-core-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation matreshka-sql-postgresql.i686: W: no-documentation matreshka-sql-postgresql.x86_64: W: no-documentation matreshka-sql-postgresql-devel.i686: W: no-documentation matreshka-sql-postgresql-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation matreshka-sql-sqlite.i686: W: no-documentation matreshka-sql-sqlite.x86_64: W: no-documentation matreshka-sql-sqlite-devel.i686: W: no-documentation matreshka-sql-sqlite-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation · The warnings about spelling errors are false positives; the spelling is correct. · The macro in a comment won't cause any problems in this case. · Executable stack is OK as noted in the Ada packaging guidelines. · The hidden directory in the debuginfo package is odd, but not something a packager should be required to change. · The unused dependency on libgnarl seems to be something that Gnat does, and is probably not something that a packager should tamper with. · Lack of documentation in the subpackages is OK because they require the main package and the devel subpackage. · The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. → OK. · The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. → OK. The names match. · The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. → OK. · The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. → OK. The license is three-clause BSD according to the file LICENSE and a few sampled source file headers. · The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. → OK. · 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. → OK. LICENSE is in the main package. · The spec file must be written in American English. → OK. The grammar isn't perfect but it's comprehensible. · The spec file for the package MUST be legible. → OK. · The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. → OK. The tarballs are identical. · The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. → OK. It builds in Koji on at least x86 and x86-64. · If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. → Possible issue: You may need to add ExclusiveArch, or maybe not. People working on secondary architectures where Gnat isn't available seem to have problems with some Ada packages and not with others, and I've never understood what makes the difference. · All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines. → ISSUE: No build-time dependencies are missing, but one seems to be included unnecessarily. I don't see why mysql-devel is needed. The build seems to work fine without it. Unnecessary build-time dependencies aren't formally forbidden as far as I can see, but common sense says you should remove this one unless it really is used for something. You can add it back later when the MySQL driver is ready. · The spec file MUST handle locales properly. → N/A. No translations are included. · 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. → OK. ldconfig is called. · Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. → OK. · 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. → OK. The package isn't relocatable. · A package must own all directories that it creates. → OK. · A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. → OK. · Permissions on files must be set properly. → OK. · Each package must consistently use macros. → OK. · The package must contain code, or permissable content. → OK. Code. · Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. → OK. There is very little documentation. · If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. → OK. · Header files must be in a -devel package. → OK. · Static libraries must be in a -static package. → N/A. Only shared libraries are packaged. · 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. → OK. · In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. → OK. · Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. → OK. · Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. → N/A. This isn't a GUI application. · Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. → OK. · All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. → OK. Ada-specific MUST items: · The package must have "BuildRequires: gcc-gnat". → ISSUE: "BuildRequires: gcc-gnat" is missing. The build works only because gcc-gnat is pulled in by fedora-gnat-project-common, and this should not be relied on. fedora-gnat-project-common does not in any way abstract away Gnat. Matreshka's makefiles invoke Gnat tools directly, and therefore there should also be a direct dependency on gcc-gnat. · The RPM macro %{GNAT_optflags} MUST be used in the compilation. → OK. (Using the name Gnatmake_optflags instead is fine.) · The package must have "BuildRequires: fedora-gnat-project-common". → OK. · Ada library packages MUST have a -devel subpackage containing all the files that are necessary for compilation of code that uses the library. → OK. · The -devel package MUST NOT contain all the source files of the library, only those that are necessary for compilation of code that uses the library. → It seems to contain all the source files except for a few that are specific to other platforms. I'm starting to think that this rule was a bad idea. It's very difficult for a reviewer to know which files are needed and which ones aren't, and it's a lot of work for a packager to rework makefiles that don't follow the rule. The code is free so we have no reason to hide it, and disk space won't be an issue on developers' workstations or on build servers. I'm going to ignore this rule for now and later propose to weaken it to "should not" or even remove it from the guidelines altogether. · The -devel package MUST NOT contain any makefiles or other files that are only used for recompiling the library. → OK. · The -devel package MUST NOT contain any *.o files. → OK. · The -devel package MUST contain one or more GNAT project files to be imported by other projects that use the library. → OK. · Project files MUST be architecture-independent. → OK. · Project files MUST NOT contain hard-coded directory names. → OK. · If the "directories" project is used, then the -devel package MUST have an explicit "Requires: fedora-gnat-project-common >= 2". → OK. · Project files MUST have an Externally_Built attribute equal to "true". → OK. SHOULD items: · 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. There is a license file. · The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. → No translations are available but that's OK. · The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. → OK. · The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. → OK. It builds on all two primary architectures. · The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. → There is a %check section with a test suite. I haven't tested the libraries manually. · If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. → OK. · Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. → OK. · 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. → N/A. There are no pkgconfig files. · 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. → OK. There are no file dependencies. · The package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. → N/A. There are no programs, only libraries. To summarize: Add a dependency on gcc-gnat, and remove the one on mysql-devel or explain why it's needed. Then this package will be good to go, although you may choose to also add ExclusiveArch. -- 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