https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832953 Pavel Raiskup <praiskup@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(bioinfornatics@gm | |ail.com) --- Comment #2 from Pavel Raiskup <praiskup@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi, thanks for packaging this nice plugin! Here is the first iteration of review. this still NEEDSWORK * license in spec file is BSD but syntastic license is WTFPL * nitpicks: -a lot of trailing white-spaces, use command in vim: set list set listchars=tab:>-,precedes:>,trail:_ :%s/[ \t]\+$//ge - not necessary empty line at the beginning of spec file - multiple empty lines.. * unused definition of 'snapdate' and 'syntastic_rev', probably should be used more generically define $alphatag * Neither package name nor summary (nor description!) reflects that it is vim plugin. This is IMO important when user wants to find vim plugins. Wouldn't it be nice to name this package something like vim-syntastic && subpackages like vim-syntastic-checker-* ? * bad dependencies in sub-packages breaks the install process: syntastic-haml - haml syntastic-gentoo-metadata - xmllint syntastic-java - javac syntastic-xslt - xmllint syntastic-json - jsonlint syntastic-erlang - escript syntastic-docbk - xmllint syntastic-cucumber - cucumber syntastic-xml - xmllint as a solution for non-so-easy dependencies (required additional "hand" steps) you may add the README.Fedora file - mentioned here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#summary * see this output (Two packages are owning this file..) $ rpm -q -f /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/syntax_checkers/c.vim syntastic-2.3.0-2.20120617git1e94b98.fc16.noarch syntastic-c-2.3.0-2.20120617git1e94b98.fc16.noarch and this (unnecessary long list): rpm --query --filesbypkg syntastic * I'm not sure how important is this but some executables don't have manual pages? - syntastic-erlang.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary erlang_check_file.erl - syntastic-perl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary efm_perl.pl * It would be nice to ask upstream for adding LICENSE file into git tree * install should be called with '-p' option to preserve timestamps ============================================================================== ==== Generic == log from PackageViewer utility ==== - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated [ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-]: 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 is included in %doc. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [-]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [!]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: MUST Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (other than no-documentation): syntastic-perl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary efm_perl.pl syntastic-erlang.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary erlang_check_file.erl [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [!]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. I tried the 'c' plugin and it works fine - but it is not possible for me to check all languages. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [!]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define add_subpackage(n:) \ Issues: [!]: MUST Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames ============================================================================== -- 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