Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224 --- Comment #9 from Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Created attachment 670170 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=670170&action=edit patch to remove libssl link Hi Lorenzo, Good job on your package. I noticed five things to update. Please fix the first three issues at least. The first thing is that rpmlint caught an unnecessary link in libshairport.so.2.0.0. The configure script adds libssl to the link flags, and as far as I can see, that library is not strictly necessary [1]. libshairport only uses OpenSSL's functions in libcrypto. It's not clear to me why this was ever linked in the first place. Looking at the git history of configure.in, it seems this libssl link was left over from the time that the code existed in the main xbmc tree. I'm attaching a patch which seems to fix this problem. Please coordinate with upstream to see if the author will accept it; otherwise, you may want to have the patch in your package. The second thing is that the -devel subpackage contains two files that are unnecessary. Please remove "LICENSE" and "README" files from the -devel subpackage. You only need to ship them in the main package. [2] The third thing is that the Summary: field should be capitalized, so change "emulates" to "Emulates". The fourth thing is that rpmlint complains about permissions on the generate-tarball script. You can change the permissions on the generate-tarball script from 775 to 755 to silence rpmlint's warning. The fifth thing is that rpmlint complains using %define instead of %global. The reason for using %global is explained in a packaging draft [3]. Lastly, and this is just a process thing: each time you make a change to the package, please update your "Release" field and changelog and post new links in Bugzilla. This will help to clarify to reviewers that you have changed the package. (This convention is sort of undocumented, so I've started a discussion about formalizing this on -devel [4].) Overall you have a good package that basically meets the packaging guidelines. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define [4] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-December/175698.html Full review follows. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Yes, MIT. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [-]: Package functions as described. Untested. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL. Comments contain instructions. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream has no "check" rule to run. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define checkout 20121218git16395d8 ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libshairport-1.2.1-1.20121218git16395d8.fc17.src.rpm libshairport-devel-1.2.1-1.20121218git16395d8.fc17.i686.rpm libshairport-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.20121218git16395d8.fc17.i686.rpm libshairport-1.2.1-1.20121218git16395d8.fc17.i686.rpm libshairport.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C emulates an AirPort Express libshairport.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iPods -> i Pods, iPod, iPod's libshairport.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libao -> libation libshairport.src: W: strange-permission libshairport-generate-tarball-gz.sh 0775L libshairport.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libshairport-1.2.1.20121218git16395d8.tar.gz libshairport.i686: W: summary-not-capitalized C emulates an AirPort Express libshairport.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iPods -> i Pods, iPod, iPod's libshairport.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libao -> libation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libshairport-debuginfo libshairport-devel libshairport libshairport.i686: W: summary-not-capitalized C emulates an AirPort Express libshairport.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iPods -> i Pods, iPod, iPod's libshairport.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libao -> libation libshairport.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libshairport.so.2.0.0 /lib/libssl.so.10 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-17-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 888224 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=unCP0JTSdC&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review