https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- First of all I really don't like the package's name. Initially I thought it's about Global Positioning Systems and probably others could be mistaken as well. Could you please rename it? For example into gnat-programming-studio (to be honest, I really don't know much about a typical Ada workflow and how you are (Ada developers) usually refer to the tools you're using so keep in mind this while taking my advices). Otherwise the package looks quite good (as it should be assuming your package experience so far) except some minor things (which I am not fully aware of, so I'm going to cast the reat of Fedora Ada SIG into this ticket) and here is my formal REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is NOT silent. Except bogus messages aout spelling mistakes, could you please explain the rest? I'm especially concerned about rpath,, executable-stack and zero-length files. sulaco ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/gps-* gps.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization gps.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizations -> customization, customization's, customization s gps.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization gps.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizations -> customization, customization's, customization s gps.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gps ['/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/adalib/', '/usr/lib64', '/usr/lib', '$ORIGIN/../../templates_parser/.build/native/release/relocatable/lib/', '/usr/lib64/xmlada/relocatable/', '$ORIGIN/../../gnatlib/src/lib/gtk/relocatable/', '$ORIGIN/../../gnatlib/src/lib/python/relocatable/', '$ORIGIN/../../gnatlib/src/lib/gnatcoll/relocatable/', '/usr/lib64/'] gps.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/gps gps.x86_64: W: no-documentation gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/tutorial/projects/prj1/src1.adb gps.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gps/examples/language/language_custom.h gps.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/matrix_handling/matrix_utils.c gps.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gps/examples/remote/my_ssh 0644L /bin/sh gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/projects/prj4/src4.adb gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/projects/prj3/src3.adb gps.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gps/examples/language/gprcustom.c gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/tutorial/projects/prj4/src4.adb gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/projects/prj1/src1.adb gps.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/gps/templates/aws_web_server_blocks/js/aws_kernel.tjs gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/tutorial/projects/prj3/src3.adb gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/projects/prj2/src2.adb gps.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/matrix_handling/matrix.c gps.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/matrix_handling/matrix.h gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/tutorial/projects/prj2/src2.adb gps.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gps 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 12 warnings. sulaco ~: +/- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. However I've made some advices to the packager. See above. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2 or later as stated in the sources). -The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc so it MUST be marked as %doc in the %files section. Please do. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum gps-5.0.1-gpl-src.tgz* 008a04eac17088144d25532bdad933b80c8198ac40b3aa67d8e3df4268f0b9ae gps-5.0.1-gpl-src.tgz 008a04eac17088144d25532bdad933b80c8198ac40b3aa67d8e3df4268f0b9ae gps-5.0.1-gpl-src.tgz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No C/C++ header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. - The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file does not installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section so please use desktop-file-validate for that. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 0 At the beginning of %install, the package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. So here is a TODO list: * Lets discuss naming scheme. * Explain some rpmlint messages. * Fedora Ada SIG members, could you please take a look at the build log: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9270/4189270/build.log Are these gcc arguments are valid Fedora gcc arguments for Ada or not? In case we do have them. * Add licensing info to the main package. * Run desktop-file-validate within the %install section. -- 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