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=786860 --- Comment #6 from rudy.sicard@xxxxxxxxxxx 2012-03-09 12:57:29 EST --- Hi, Thank you for the review, and sorry for the delays. Here are my comment and question. The new spec and srpm and rpm are available at: http://download.opalang.org/fedora-package-candidate/opa.spec http://download.opalang.org/fedora-package-candidate/opa-0.9.0-2.fc17.src.rpm http://download.opalang.org/fedora-package-candidate/opa-0.9.0-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm I list all issues and give an "ANSWER" for each. I finish by a summary. BEGIN ISSUE $ rpmlint opa.spec opa.spec:106: W: macro-in-comment %buildroot opa.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: opalang.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. I think the Source0 should be a URL and not just the file name. $ rpmlint opa-0.9.0-1.fc17.src.rpm opa.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Opa opa.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog opa.src:106: W: macro-in-comment %buildroot opa.src: W: invalid-url Source0: opalang.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. END ISSUE BEGIN ANSWER I changed Source0 to be a URL. Note that the source can be a file name if the explanation of how to contruct file is present. END ANSWER BEGIN ISSUE I was unable to build the binary package using mock: + rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILD/usr + ./install_release.sh -no-doc -keep-build -keep-install-sys -srcdir . -dir /builddir/build/BUILD/usr error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gqsfjf (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gqsfjf (%build) END ISSUE BEGIN ANSWER Both RPM and SRPM build successfully on my x86_64 with fedora rawhide. I have tried to used mock but did not manage to use it yet. I will retry mock and post the result. END ANSWER BEGIN ISSUE [FAIL] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. Can't you use %{_libdir} (or similar) macro? No file names in %files section. I think "%{_bindir}/*" is too general and probably includes all under /usr/bin directory. END ISSUE BEGIN ANSWER I am not sure to understand what you mean. Using %{_libdir} ? Where ? I only used plain directory names to handle the lib/lib64 choice (by making lib64 pointing to lib in %_buildroot). Everything else uses macros. The upstream version always use lib, whereas fedora use lib or lib64 depending or the architeture. %{_bindir}/* is used in the example in fedora wiki http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package. (see %files section) END ANSWER BEGIN ISSUE [FAIL] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [NA] 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. END ISSUE BEGIN ANSWER See previous about binary package and mock. END ANSWER BEGIN ISSUE [FAIL] 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. => Like you wrote in the comment, you can remove packages that are dependencies of another package that you requires. END ISSUE BEGIN ANSWER I will do a pass to minimize dependencies. END ANSWER BEGIN ISSUE [NA] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [NA] 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. [NA] 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. END ISSUE BEGIN ISSUE [FAIL] 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. %dir is not used in the %files section. END ISSUE BEGIN ANSWER The section contains %{_bindir}/* %{_libdir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/doc/%{name} %{_datadir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/man/man1/* The package depends on pre-existence of system dir %{_bindir}, %{_datadir}/man/man1. It creates %{_libdir}/%{name}, %{_libdir}/%{name}, %{_datadir}/doc/%{name} and own everything that is inside. >From what I know (http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html), %dir helps packaging a directory only (without content). Should I separate the registering of directory and directory content ? e.g. Convert %files %{_libdir}/%{name} into %files %dir %{_libdir}/%{name} %{_libdir}/%{name}/* END ANSWER BEGIN ISSUE [FAIL] 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) No files are listed in the %files section. END ISSUE BEGIN ANSWER Sorry but I don't understand the problem here. No files are listed twice. END ANSWER BEGIN ISSUE [FAIL] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. No files are listed in the %files section. END ISSUE BEGIN ANSWER To me the files already have appropriate permissions. Theses permissions are not specified in the %files section but correctly set before this section (as in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package) END ANSWER BEGINE ISSUE [NA] 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. [NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA] 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} [NA] 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. END ISSUE BEGIN ISSUE [FAIL] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Since I was unable to create the rpm files I couldn't verify this. END ISSUE BEGIN ANSWER In my tests the package files have correct UTF-8 names. END ANSWER BEGIN SUMMARY I have tried to answer all the issues. I will upload a new spec file. However I still need to test the package building using mock. (it builds fine outside mock on my fedora 17) Two questions: - is it appropriate to add a directory via %files when both the directory and its content are part of the package ? - it is legal to use %{bindir}\* in %files section when package only creates files inside the bin subdir ? END SUMMARY -- 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