https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928584 --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue ** Mandatory review guidelines: ** [+] rpmlint output: [asinha@localhost SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/ros-std_msgs.spec ./ros-std_msgs-0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc19.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm ros-std_msgs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags, megs, mugs ros-std_msgs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiarrays -> multiracial ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags, megs, mugs ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiarrays -> multiracial ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: no-documentation ros-std_msgs.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/std_msgs/msg/Empty.msg ros-std_msgs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags, megs, mugs ros-std_msgs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiarrays -> multiracial ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) msgs -> mags, megs, mugs ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags, megs, mugs ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. [asinha@localhost SRPMS]$ [+] License is acceptable (...) [+] License field in spec is correct [+] License files included in package %docs if included in source package [+] License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed [+] Spec written in American English [+] Spec is legible [+] Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues [asinha@localhost SRPMS]$ review-md5check.sh ../SPECS/ros-std_msgs.spec Getting https://github.com/ros/std_msgs/archive/de0dcf16baaee40f756b9e55656fe2e744bc8fc3/std_msgs-0.4.11-de0dcf1.tar.gz to /tmp/review/std_msgs-0.4.11-de0dcf1.tar.gz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 154 100 154 0 0 122 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 123 100 6947 100 6947 0 0 3041 0 0:00:02 0:00:02 --:--:-- 19569 67999742fb86f0ed7b2880e5917ddf5a /tmp/review/std_msgs-0.4.11-de0dcf1.tar.gz 67999742fb86f0ed7b2880e5917ddf5a /home/asinha/rpmbuild/SOURCES/std_msgs-0.4.11-de0dcf1.tar.gz removed ‘/tmp/review/std_msgs-0.4.11-de0dcf1.tar.gz’ removed directory: ‘/tmp/review’ [asinha@localhost SRPMS]$ [+] Build succeeds on at least one primary arch [+] Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed [+] BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary [-] Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/* [+] %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files [+] No bundled libs [-] Relocatability is justified [+] Package owns all directories it creates [?] Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own [asinha@localhost result]$ review-req-check == ros-std_msgs-0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20.noarch.rpm == Provides: ros-std_msgs = 0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20 Requires: python(abi) = 2.7 ros-release == ros-std_msgs-0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20.src.rpm == Provides: Requires: cmake python-setuptools-devel catkin-devel python-genmsg-devel python-gencpp-devel python-genlisp-devel python-genpy-devel == ros-std_msgs-devel-0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20.noarch.rpm == Provides: pkgconfig(std_msgs) = 0.4.11 ros-std_msgs = 0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20 ros-std_msgs-devel = 0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20 Requires: /usr/bin/pkg-config [asinha@localhost result]$ ^^ 1.Just confirming: Which package that is Required by this one is the %{_datadir}/common-lisp/ros/ directory owned by? 2. Shouldn't the package require the non devel versions of the python BRs to function? [+] No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files [+] File permissions are sane [+] Package contains permissible code or content [-] Large docs go in -doc subpackage [?] %doc files not required at runtime There is no documentation at all. No licence or even a README :/ [-] Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides [+] Development files go in -devel package [+] -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa Noarch so isa isn't needed [+] No .la files [-] GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install [-] File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification [+] File names are valid UTF-8 ** Optional review guidelines: ** [?] Query upstream about including license files We can, but I don't think ROS intends to include licence files in any of it's packages. Should we make ros-release include a license file if it doesn't already, since all these packages will be expected to Require it? [-] Translations of description, summary [+] Builds in mock [+] Builds on all arches [-] Functions as described (e.g. no crashes) [-] Scriptlets are sane [+] Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible [+] .pc file subpackage placement is sensible [+] No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin [-] Include man pages if available Naming guidelines: [+] Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+ [+] Package names are sane [+] No naming conflicts [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] Version is sane [+] Version does not contain ~ [+] Release is sane [+] %dist tag [+] Case used only when necessary [-] Renaming handled correctly Packaging guidelines: [+] Useful without external bits [+] No kmods [-] Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep [+] Sources contain only redistributable code or content [+] Spec format is sane [+] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target [+] No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17 [-] Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run [-] Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17 [-] No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local [+] Changelog in prescribed format [+] No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags [+] Summary does not end in a period [-] Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6 [-] Correct %clean section on < EL6 [?] Requires correct, justified where necessary The directory owning the list sub dir needs clarification [+] Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly [-] All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc [-] Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x) [-] Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc [+] Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise [-] PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs [+] Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified [-] Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6 [+] No static executables [+] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs [+] Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config [+] No config files under /usr [-] Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir [-] .desktop files are sane [+] Spec uses macros consistently [+] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate [+] Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed [+] %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work [+] Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time [+] Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir [+] No software collections (scl) [+] Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name [+] Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs [+] %global, not %define [-] Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it [-] Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel [+] File ops preserve timestamps [+] Parallel make [+] No Requires(pre,post) notation [-] User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) [-] Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www [-] Conflicts are justified [+] One project per package [+] No bundled fonts [-] Patches have appropriate commentary [-] Available test suites executed in %check [-] tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15 ** Python guidelines: ** [?] Runtime Requires correct Should this package require other ros python packages, the non devel versions of ones required as BRs? [-] Python macros declared on < EL6 [+] All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts [?] Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated Should egg info be generated for this package? [-] Provides/Requires properly filtered [-] Code that invokes gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array() Requires numpy Are all the files in the non devel package files that are required at runtime? I think they are. Do you think you need to split the package further in to a python and a lisp subpackage? Then we'd have: a main package a python bindings package a list package a c++ headers package The package is mostly OK. Some tiny issues that need to be handled. -- 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=ZIhiuj0osh&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review