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=773419 Karel Volný <kvolny@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED URL| |http://www.wormux.org/ CC| |kvolny@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kvolny@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Karel Volný <kvolny@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-01-15 15:11:54 EST --- 1) package renaming - FAIL Obsoletes: wormux < 0.9.2.1-7 Obsoletes: wormux-data < 0.9.2.1-7 - this is ok (the latest available version is 0.9.2.1-6), but there is missing Provides: wormux = %{version}-%{release} Provides: wormux-data = %{version}-%{release} so the package does NOT provide a clean update path, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages note especially "Provides should be assumed to be deprecated and short lived and removed in the distro release after the next one ... and the distro version where it is planned to be dropped documented in a comment in the specfile" - such comment is also missing 2) must items * MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint -v SPECS/warmux.spec SRPMS/warmux-11.04.1-1.fc16.src.rpm RPMS/x86_64/warmux-11.04.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm RPMS/noarch/warmux-data-11.04.1-1.fc16.noarch.rpm SPECS/warmux.spec: I: checking-url http://download.gna.org/warmux/warmux-11.04.1.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) warmux.src: I: checking warmux.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toon -> tun, too, ton - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toon warmux.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US firefox -> Firefox, firebox, fire fox warmux.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wilber -> wilier, wilder, Wilbert - ok, these are names of the characters - not a single person name which would be written with a capital letter warmux.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pre-eminently warmux.src: I: checking-url http://www.wormux.org (timeout 10 seconds) warmux.src: I: checking-url http://download.gna.org/warmux/warmux-11.04.1.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) warmux.x86_64: I: checking warmux.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toon -> tun, too, ton warmux.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US firefox -> Firefox, firebox, fire fox warmux.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wilber -> wilier, wilder, Wilbert warmux.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee - same as above warmux.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.wormux.org (timeout 10 seconds) warmux.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided wormux - see above the renaming review warmux.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/warmux-11.04.1/COPYING - please report upstream (note that it needs to be changed in source files too) warmux.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary warmux-list-games - not a problem, it is a helper utility warmux-data.noarch: I: checking warmux-data.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.wormux.org (timeout 10 seconds) warmux-data.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided wormux-data - see above the renaming review warmux-data.noarch: W: no-documentation - it is part of the main package 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings. * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - ok * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. - ok * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. - fail ... the specific problems are described under other items of this review * 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. - both okay ... except that xml_document.cpp itself doesn't mention libxml/BSD license - report upstream? * 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. - ok, %doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - ok * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. - ok; it'be nice to have more consistent indentation ... * 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. - ok, 26ff65c43a9bb61a3f0529c98b943e35 matches my download (sum not provided by upstream) * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. - FAIL - this doesn't build in rawhide, due to missing zlib include, see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3697088 * 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. - on F16, it builds both on i686 and x86_64 ... let the others to be handled by their respective teams * 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. - looks sane * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. - see the note below in section 4 * 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. - ok, no libraries * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. - ok, there are parts of Vicent and fixedpoint, but the bits are part of own warmux code, and none of these is available as a package * 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. - N/A * 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. - FAIL, warmux puts icon into %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/ but it doesn't seem that its dependency chain includes anything that would own that * 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) - ok * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. - seems sane (no %defattr, but package contents looks ok) * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. - ok, just macros * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. - ok * MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. - N/A * 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. - ok * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. - N/A * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. - N/A * 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. - N/A * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - N/A * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. - ok * 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. - the desktop file should no longer be prefixed "fedora-", renaming the package is a nice opportunity to change the desktop file name https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage - "For new packages, do not apply a vendor tag to desktop files." - fail, the icon should NOT have .png suffix specified https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Icon_tag_in_Desktop_Files * 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. - ok, no dirs owned, but it clashes a bit with unowned dirs, see above * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. - or plain ASCII :-) 3) 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. - ok, there's COPYING ... which doesn't cover special cases of code taken from elsewhere as discussed above, but I deem that unimportant, as it doesn't affect license of the whole application * SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. - not available ... but you can do Czech at least ;-) * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - tried Koji scratchbuild, see above * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. - see above * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. - ok, playable * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. - hm, shouldn't be that touch done only if the icon cache is to be really updated (i.e. when the following condition is met, gtk-update-icon-cache is available)? * SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. - I don't see any reason why -data should require the executables (OTOH, what to do with data without the game?), but it is there - btw, does the game work with older data? - shouldn't be the dependency of warmux on warmux-data also versioned? * 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. - N/A * 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. - N/A, no explicit requires * SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. - see rpmlint discussion above 4) other I do not understand one thing: %configure --disable-nls --disable-dependency-tracking ... why disable-nls? I see no problem with i18n - except that you'd need to add BuildRequires: gettext and make use of %find_lang, and maybe also enable fribidi as there is also Hebrew translation which needs right-to-left (if I'm not mistaken about Hebrew script and what fribidi really does?) -- 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