[Bug 719757] Review Request: apron - Numerical abstract domain library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=719757

--- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-04 04:07:13 EDT ---
Hi Jerry,

looking pretty good. Just a few questions below:

Required
========
+ - OK
- - N/A
X - attention
? - comment please

[+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines 
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec 
[+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines
unless building for F12 and below  or EPEL   
[?] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines 
*** Just need to clarify the multiple licenses in the SPEC file. May also need
to reflect in the relevant %file section (ie 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios

[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license 
[+] License file must be included in %doc
[+] The spec file must be written in American English
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
*** b108de2f4a8c4ecac1ff76a6d282946fd3bf1466a126cf5344723955f305ec8e OK
[+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary
architecture
[-] Proper use of ExcludeArch 
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[+] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] 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
[+] A package must own all directories that it creates
directories under this
[+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] Each package must consistently use macros
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[+] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[?] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
*** You have separated the *_debug.so files out into a separate package?
[+] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[-] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[-] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section 
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

[?] Packaged according to Fedora OCAML packaging guidelines
**** Do you need an explicit Requires: apron-devel in package
ocaml-apron-devel? 
Similiarly -debug packages.
see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml#-devel_subpackage


Should Items
============
[+] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to
include it
[-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the
package spec if available

[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
 rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/*apron*.rpm
apron.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US invariants -> invariant, in
variants, in-variants
apron.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US invariants -> invariant,
in variants, in-variants
apron-debug.x86_64: W: no-documentation
apron-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/apron-0.9.10/newpolka/mf_qsort.c
ocaml-apron-debug.x86_64: W: no-documentation
8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

[+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures
[-] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described
[+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[?] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
Do you need an explicit Requires: apron-debug in package ocaml-apron-debug?
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] 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 contain man pages for binaries/scripts

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]