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=784156 --- Comment #13 from Jorge A Gallegos <kad@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-18 14:03:16 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) > Gal > > couple comments inline > > > (In reply to comment #9) > > I've been asked to publish a full review report. > > > > [PASS] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the > > build produces. The output should be posted in the review. > > > > The review process requires that the output of rpmlint on all binaries and > source rpm files be posted in the review. > > > [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. > > > > [PASS] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. > > > > [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. > > > > This is only done for the main package. It should be done for every package > (devel, plugin-*, so this requirement FAILS. > from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing: "If a subpackage is dependent (either implicitly or explicitly) upon a base package (where a base package is defined as a resulting binary package from the same source RPM which contains the appropriate license texts as %doc), it is not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license texts as %doc." The -devel package is depending on the main uwsgi package, and all -plugin packages depend on -plugin-common, which depends on the main uwsgi package. > > [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. > > > > Typically you would show the sha256sum in the review. For example: > [root@beast SOURCES]# sha256sum uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz > 78280b57a970db7842e4481f8b00f13d011f27b340c869dc1ad28d564d716439 > uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz > [root@beast SPECS]# wget > http://projects.unbit.it/downloads/uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz > --2012-02-14 09:06:35-- > http://projects.unbit.it/downloads/uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz > Resolving projects.unbit.it... 81.174.68.52 > Connecting to projects.unbit.it|81.174.68.52|:80... connected. > HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK > Length: 465250 (454K) [application/x-gzip] > Saving to: “uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz” > > 100%[======================================>] 465,250 93.5K/s in 5.9s > > 2012-02-14 09:06:41 (76.9 KB/s) - “uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz” saved [465250/465250] > > [root@beast SPECS]# sha256sum uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz > 78280b57a970db7842e4481f8b00f13d011f27b340c869dc1ad28d564d716439 > uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz > > > > [PASS] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms > > on at least one primary architecture. > > > > [IRRELEVANT] 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. > > > > [IRRELEVANT] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by > > using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. > > > > [IRRELEVANT] 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. > > rather then irrelevant, NA (not applicable) makes more sense here. > > > > [PASS] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. > > > > [IRRELEVANT] 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. > > > > are you sure about this? %{_libdir}/%name doesn't appear to be owned by any > package although it is used by a variety of packages. A recommendation on what > package should own this directory would be helpful for the packager as well. > I'm a bit confused here, I agree %{_libdir}/%{name} should be owned by some package (most likely -plugins-common) but I am not sure how to include that dir and *not* including the rest of the .so files within. If I do this in the spec: %files -n %{name}-plugin-common %doc ChangeLog LICENSE README %{_libdir}/%{name} %{_libdir}/%{name}/cache_plugin.so %{_libdir}/%{name}/cgi_plugin.so %{_libdir}/%{name}/rpc_plugin.so %{_libdir}/%{name}/ugreen_plugin.so It includes %{_libdir}/%{name} and *.so right in the first entry. Any clues how to do this? > > [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. > > > > [PASS] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. > > > > [PASS] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. > > > > [IRRELEVANT] 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). [18] > > 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. > > > > [IRRELEVANT] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > > > > [PASS] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [20] > > 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. > > > > [IRRELEVANT] 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. [23] > > > > [PASS] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. -- 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