[Bug 739798] Review Request: pcp-gui - Visualization tools for the Performance Co-Pilot toolkit

[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=739798

Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(mgoodwin@redhat.c
                   |                            |om)

--- Comment #2 from Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-14 11:42:35 EST ---
FAIL MUST: rpmlint, tested on F15 x86-64 build:
           [root@very]~/rpmbuild# rpmlint SRPMS/pcp-gui-1.5.1-1.fc15.src.rpm 
           [1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
           [[root@very]~/rpmbuild# rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/pcp-*
           [pcp-gui.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package
/usr/share/man/man1
           [pcp-gui.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /var/lib
           [pcp-gui.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/libexec/pcp/bin/pmsnap
           [pcp-gui-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/pcp-gui-1.5.1/src/chart/main.cpp
           [pcp-gui-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/pcp-gui-1.5.1/src/chart/pmchart.cpp
           [pcp-gui-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/pcp-gui-1.5.1/src/chart/namespace.cpp
           [3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings.
PASS MUST: The spec file name must match the base package.
FAIL MUST: No gross violations of Packaging:Guidelines seen.
           Minor stuff: run desktop-file-install on pmchart.desktop.
PASS MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license 
PASS MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
           (COPYING file includes all licenses).
PASS MUST: [License file included in %doc]
PASS MUST: The spec file must be written in American English
PASS MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible
PASS MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
PASS MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
PASS MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture -- none found
PASS MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, 
PASS MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly -- package not i18n'd
PASS MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files -- none
PASS MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
PASS MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact
PASS MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
PASS MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
PASS MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly -- no gross errors seen
PASS MUST: MUST: Each package must consistently use macros -- minimal use
PASS MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content
PASS MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
           NB: it's named pcp-doc rather than pcp-gui-doc.
PASS MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. -- apparently
PASS MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package -- none
PASS MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
PASS MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1) -> -devel -- none
PASS MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require [...] -
none
PASS MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool
FAIL MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file,
           Package's pmchart.desktop needs to be desktop-file-install'd
FAIL MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
           Same as rpmlint errors at top.
PASS MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

OK   SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) [...]
OK   SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations -- n/a
KO   SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock -- tested
on f15 native system only
KO   SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures
OK   SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
-- smoke-tested
OK   SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane -- no
scriptlets
OK   SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency
             NB: pcp-gui & pcp-doc subpackage not mutually required
OK   SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends -- none
OK   SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside -- no /file
dependencies
OK   SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts --
includes 8 man pages in main package


Bottom line, looks good except for rpmlint errors, and missing
desktop-file-install.

-- 
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]