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=746848 Peter Gordon <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx) --- Comment #3 from Peter Gordon <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-10-17 23:53:27 EDT --- Review of dbus-sharp-0.7.0-1: NEEDSWORK Just a couple of small problems (see the "NEEDS WORK" section below); but once those are fixed, this package looks good to go. =) === GOOD === These are items from the review checklist [2] which are being followed correctly. + rpmlint is clean on the source RPM. + Package is named according to the package naming guidelines, and the spec file is named accordingly ("%{name}.spec"). + Meets the packaging guidelines as outlined on the Wiki. + The license (MIT) is acceptable for Fedora, included as documentation (%doc), and the package's license matches that of upstream. + Spec file is legible, and written in American English. + The included sources match the source tarball given at Source0. (I checked this with SHA-256 checksums, as shown.) $ sha256sum dbus-sharp-0.7.0.tar.gz* 92529aef9063f477d1975947c6388c63d03234018f45d007c07716dd3e21dd41 dbus-sharp-0.7.0.tar.gz-fedora 92529aef9063f477d1975947c6388c63d03234018f45d007c07716dd3e21dd41 dbus-sharp-0.7.0.tar.gz-upstream + Succesfully builds in Mock for Rawhide on both i386 and x86_64, with appropriate Mono-specific ExcludeArch used. + Dependencies (both build- and runtime) look sane. + Package does not bundle duplicates or copies of system libraries. + File/directory ownership and permissions are handled correctly, with no duplicates of system stuff, and no unowned or orphaned directories within the package itself. + Macro usage is clear and consistent. + Included documentation (README and COPYING) does not appear to affect runtime. + pkconfig file is correctly shipped in a -devel subpackage; and that -devel subpackage correctly hardcodes a dependency on the main package: Requires: %name = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} + Package contains acceptable code. + All file names are valid UTF-8. === NEEDS WORK === These issue(s) are problematic and prevent the package from being approved. (1) rpmlint output is not clean on the binary RPMs: dbus-sharp.x86_64: E: no-binary dbus-sharp.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib dbus-sharp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. According to Packaging:Mono on the Wiki [1], it should install its files in the GAC in /usr/lib or /usr/lib/dbus-sharp, and *not* in an arch-specific location such as /usr/lib64. That should fix the first two complaints. The no-documentation warning is probably safe to ignore; but if you'd want to do so for clarity, you could opt to put a copy of the COPYING and/or README file in that too. (2) After compilation and installation to the buildroot, the DLL needs to be registered with gacutil. (This is also explained on the wiki page.) Add something like the following to your %install section: gacutil -i mono/dbus-sharp/dbus-sharp.dll -f -package dbus-sharp -root %{buildroot}/usr/lib (You may need to adjust the directory as necessary.) (3) The %defattr line in your %files section is not necessary with current RPM versions. Please remove it. (This particular one is a nitpick of mine. It's technically optional; but I feel the spec file would be cleaner with it removed.) === NOT APPLICABLE === These are items from the review checklist [2] that do not pertain to this particular package. ~ Package does not use locales, so %find_lang is not necessary. ~ Package does not store native shared libraries (with or without version suffixes), so ldconfig calls are also not necessary. There are also no static libraries. nor libtool archives. ~ Package is not designed to be relocatable. ~ Documentation is not very large, so putting it in its own -doc subpackage is also not necessary. ~ Package is not a GUI application, so no .desktop file is required. ~ No translations are available for Summary/Description. ~ No file-based dependencies are used. ~ Package contains no manual pages. === References === [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Mono [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines -- 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