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=737399 --- Comment #20 from Ignacio Casal Quinteiro (nacho) <icq@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-20 08:56:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18) > Matěj: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages > > also needs to be taken into account. If this is supposed to replace > gedit-plugins-latex, then it should > Obsoletes: gedit-plugins-latex < %{version}-%{release} > Provides: gedit-plugins-latex = %{version}-%{release} Fixed. (In reply to comment #16) > - MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build > produces. The output should be posted in the review. > > [matej@maceska task_3363917]$ rpmlint *.rpm > ----------------- gedit-latex-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package > > Generation of debuginfo packages could be switched off > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_debuginfo_packages_due_to_other_reasons) > by > > %global debug_package %{nil} fixed > > ----------------- gedit-latex.i686: E: no-binary > ----------------- gedit-latex.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > > This is OK (this is actually noarch package in arch's clothing). > > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings. > [matej@maceska task_3363917]$ > > + MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > There is a conflict with already existing package node, so rename is allowed. > + 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. > > tiny nitpicks > - %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} === %setup -q > (%{name}-%{version} is default) > - sed -i -e 1d latex/util/eps2png.pl > I would prefer > sed -i -e '/^#!\/.*bin\/perl/d' latex/util/eps2png.pl > or something similar. fixed > > + 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. > + 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. > MD5SUM: 262276187329b810143bdd712117ba87 > + MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. > Builds in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3363917 > + 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. > + 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}%{?_isa} = > %{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. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed > should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This > means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with > any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you > feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another > package owns, then please present that at package review time. > + 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. > builds in koji > + SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all > supported architectures. > + 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. > > ------------ > Please fix the issue with the debuginfo indicated in the first point. > Otherwise, I think, we are almost there. -- 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