Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Chris Tyler <chris@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|chris@xxxxxxxxxxx |nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #18 from Chris Tyler <chris@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Non-sponsor review: Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Note: Package comments explain why optimizations are disabled, but the other compiler option flags should be honoured (via %{optflags}) such as -g [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package Note: should be automatically produced if -g option is used during make [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. Note: ExcludeArch should not be included (these tools can be used to cross-prepare ACPI tables even on systems that cannot use them) [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package should obsolete pmtools - alternatives mechanism will only work if the other package is alternatives-aware, and it appears to contain an older version of the same tools. Coordinate the retirement of the obsoleted packages with the other package maintainers. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. See note above. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. See note on pmtools conflict above. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: Only use %_sourcedir in very specific situations. Note: %_sourcedir is used. Use %{SOURCE1} to refer to the Source1 file instead. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. See notes on optflags above. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make. Note: Add %{?_smp_mflags} to the make to enable this. [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [!]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Note: Making "alike as possible" to Debian doesn't really explain why the patches are justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: acpica-tools-20130214-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm acpica-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acpidump -> dumpiness acpica-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pmtools -> pm tools, pm-tools, tools 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint acpica-tools acpica-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acpidump -> dumpiness acpica-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pmtools -> pm tools, pm-tools, tools 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ===== Additional comments: - Recommend the use of globs in %files section to (a) reduce spec file size and (b) reduce the number of edits required as upstream changes (e.g., adds or deletes binaries): %{_bindir}/* %{_mandir}/*/* The install section could also use globs to reduce editing for future releases: install -pD generate/unix/bin/*/* %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/ install -pDm 0644 *.1 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/ - Avoid macro references in changelog (%check) - README.Fedora notes on git clone steps are apparently obsolete -- 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=IBtIv3mPrG&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review