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=809614 --- Comment #4 from Ricardo Rocha <rocha.porto@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-13 14:35:45 EDT --- Ok here goes a first round. [-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. rpmlint is not silent (on the rpm packages): gfal2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wlcg -> cowl gfal2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wlcg -> cowl gfal2-all.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gfal -> gal, goal, fall gfal2-all.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gfal -> gal, goal, fall gfal2-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Doxygen -> Oxygen, D oxygen gfal2-plugin-dcap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gsidcap -> sidecar gfal2-plugin-dcap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached gfal2-plugin-gridftp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gsiftp -> sift gfal2-plugin-lfc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lfn -> NFL gfal2-plugin-rfio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dpm -> pm, dim, dam gfal2-transfer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gfal -> gal, goal, fall These should all be due to the usage of lowercase. gfal2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gfal2_version Any chance of adding it? I know it's probably not meaningful, but it would go away :-) gfal2-core.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libgfal2.so.2.0.0 # rpmlint -I executable-stack executable-stack: The binary declares the stack as executable. Executable stack is usually an error as it is only needed if the code contains GCC trampolines or similar constructs which uses code on the stack. One common source for needlessly executable stack cases are object files built from assembler files which don't define a proper .note.GNU-stack section. Please check. 13 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. [=] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Sorry for pointing this again, but i find it confusing to have a new package due to a backwards incompatible change. 1) Could the library simple have a soversion major bump instead of a rename? 2) If it's a new version with big changes, then could you consider this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name it suggests versioning the old one and shipping the new one with the actual name? It looks like the rename comes from upstream anyway so it should probably go like this, just pointing this out. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [+] 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. [+] 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. [=] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. Very minor things, but please check: line 42: 'it' instead of 'It' line 43: 'system' instead of 'systems' line 60: 'file' instead of 'files' line 127: 'allows' instead of 'allow' [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. # md5sum gfal2-2.0.0.tar.gz gfal2-2.0.0.tar.gz.srpm 3be87c77dbaf99078552bfa96cbb97db gfal2-2.0.0.tar.gz 3be87c77dbaf99078552bfa96cbb97db gfal2-2.0.0.tar.gz.srpm [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Koji builds successful. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3989055 (el5) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3989059 (el6) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3989050 (f16) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3989064 (rawhide) [+] 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. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires Builds fine with mock and koji. [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [+] 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. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [+] 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. [-] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} You depend only on %{version}, is release missing or is there another reason? [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] 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. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 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. [+] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] 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. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. Very minimal test: # /usr/bin/gfal2_version GFAL-client-"2.0.0" [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] 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. [+] 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. [+] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. -- 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