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=772406 --- Comment #5 from Christos Triantafyllidis <christos.triantafyllidis@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-01-08 09:56:15 EST --- Many thanks adev for the informal review!! (In reply to comment #3) > Informal package Review, I am not a sponsor. > > > > [FAIL] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the > build produces. The output should be posted in the review. > > cpulimit.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1-1 ['1.1-1.el5.centos', > '1.1-1.centos'] > cpulimit.x86_64: W: no-documentation > cpulimit-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources > > no-documentation -> no man pages or documentation files No man page from UPSTREAM, there is a bug report with a man page for too long but never included. I decided not to put it on my self based on: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513541 > incoherent-version-in-changelog -> need to be set properly I guess i miss a %{dist} there... is it required? changelog (at least to this point) is not dist specific. Rpmlint on rawhide binaries doesn't through this as an error. (trivial to fix if needed) > cpulimit-debuginfo -> compiled without -g flag Fixed in meanwhile :). > > [PASS] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming > Guidelines . > [PASS] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the > format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. > [FAIL] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . > > -> Usage of %{optflags} for compilation flags if possible Fixed > -> No debuginfo because of no -g opts Fixed > -> why several src rpm ? One per dist, this is required i think. > > [PASS] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and > meet the Licensing Guidelines . > [PASS] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > [PASS] 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. > [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, 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. > > -> rpmdev-md5 cpulimit-1.1-1.el5.src.rpm > 00d6d2fabdcb2ecfa2355724e9dc3f4b cpulimit-1.1-1.el5.src.rpm > f4ff6d4bfaef1258e8f5cd2041e2e2a3 cpulimit-1.1.tar.gz > e5a087539a57670534d019f92f19e119 cpulimit.spec > -> md5sum cpulimit-1.1.tar.gz > f4ff6d4bfaef1258e8f5cd2041e2e2a3 cpulimit-1.1.tar.gz > -> md5sum cpulimit-1.1.tar.gz specs/cpulimit.spec > e5a087539a57670534d019f92f19e119 specs/cpulimit.spec > > > [PASS] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms > on at least one primary architecture. > [PASS] 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. > [PASS] 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. > [PASS] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using > the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. > [PASS] 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. > [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 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. > [PASS] 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. > [PASS] 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) > [PASS] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be > set with executable permissions, for example. > [FAIL] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. > > -> /usr/bin paths can be replaced by %{_bindir} macro Fixed > > [PASS] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. > [PASS] 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). > [PASS] 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. > [PASS] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. > [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), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in > a -devel package. > [PASS] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the > base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = > %{version}-%{release} > [PASS] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be > removed in the spec if they are built. > [PASS] 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. > [PASS] 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. > [PASS] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > > > [FAIL] 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. > > -> add license file in the package I could ping upstream to add a license file but i don't think this will be done soon based on reactions of the upstream to other reports. Is this a blocker? > > [PASS] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file > should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [PASS] 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. > f15-candidate x86_64 -> success > f15-candidate i386 -> success > > [PASS] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as > described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. > [PASS] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is > vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. > [PASS] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency. > [PASS] 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. > [PASS] 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. > [FAIL] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If > it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. > > -> lack of documentation files ( man pages ) See comment above. A man page (created for debian shake) has been submitted as bug to UPSTREAM but was never included. I fully agree with comments on about possible inaccuracies and deprecation in future thus i'd prefer not to add one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513541 If this is a blocker i could add it though :(. Many many thanks for the review. Christos -- 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