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=751820 --- Comment #4 from Praveen Kumar <kumarpraveen.nitdgp@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-09 09:41:10 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > Sorry about that, the issue is that i tried in a RHEL5 machine. > > This is an informal review, for the purpose of my sponshorship, tracked here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749132 > > General comments: > > 1) I would put the actual name in the url, not using the %{name} tag (easier to > copy paste) But It's always good to use macros and tags. > > 2) Package should probably be noarch, see below for more done > > 3) Why do you package the spec file in the binary rpm? That is a sample spec file which is with source so I have to put. > > 4) It would be nice to get man pages. I already mailed to upstream but did not get any reply yet > > 5) And a wish, consider adding any tests to %check if you have them (not a must > of course). > > +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing > > MUST Items: > [-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. > > rpmlint is not silent: > W: summary-ended-with-dot C A tool for signing and email all UIDs on a set of > PGP keys. > - should be an obvious fix > > W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keysigning -> key signing, key-signing, > designing > - key-signing? > > E: no-binary > - stuff in %{_bindir} are python and perl scripts, should it be noarch? > > W: no-manual-page-for-binary pius-keyring-mgr > W: no-manual-page-for-binary pius-party-worksheet > W: no-manual-page-for-binary pius > - please consider adding man pages for all commands > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Man_pages > > E: empty-debuginfo-package > - debuginfo rpm is empty, same as above, package should probably be noarch > > # rpmlint -I empty-debuginfo-package > empty-debuginfo-package: > This debuginfo package contains no files. This is often a sign of binaries > being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, rpmbuild not being > able to strip the binaries, the package actually being a noarch one but > erratically packaged as arch dependent, or something else. Verify what the > case is, and if there's no way to produce useful debuginfo out of it, disable > creation of the debuginfo package. > > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. > > [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} > [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [FIXME?: covers this > list and more] > [+] 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. > # md5sum pius-2.0.9.tar.bz2* > 6ea4b2eabf50f2d40aabe21a22c46bc4 pius-2.0.9.tar.bz2 > 6ea4b2eabf50f2d40aabe21a22c46bc4 pius-2.0.9.tar.bz2_srcrpm > > [=] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on > at least one supported architecture. > - it builds fine, but see above regarding noarch > > [+] 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. > [-] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires > - i don't think you need python-devel in the BuildRequires (just python in > Requires) we need python-devel as BuildRequires http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires > > [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the > %find_lang macro. > [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package 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: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state > this fact in the request for review > [+] 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 package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. > [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > with executable permissions, for example > - and %defattr not required anymore > [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > - not required for >= F13 > [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros > section of Packaging Guidelines. > [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is > described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. > [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. > [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the > runtime of the application. > [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. > [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' > (for directory ownership and usability). > [+] 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} = > %{version}-%{release} > [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be > removed in the spec. > [+] 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. > [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. > [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > - not required anymore > [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > > SHOULD Items: > [+] 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. > [=] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all > supported architectures. > - noarch? see above > > [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. > - tried simple execution and it seems to work > [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. > [+] 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: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps Done -- 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