[Bug 1018492] Review Request: vcsh - Version Control System for $HOME

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018492

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Review:

[+] OK
[-] NA
[?] Issue

** Mandatory review guidelines: **
 [+] rpmlint output:
[asinha@ankur-laptop  SRPMS]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm
vcsh.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig,
con-fig, configure
vcsh.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US configs -> con figs,
con-figs, configure
vcsh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig,
configure
vcsh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash
vcsh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US configs -> con figs,
con-figs, configure
vcsh.src:52: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot}
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
[asinha@ankur-laptop  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@ankur-laptop  SRPMS]$ review-md5check.sh ../SPECS/vcsh.spec
Getting https://github.com/RichiH/vcsh/archive/v1.20130909.tar.gz to
/tmp/review/v1.20130909.tar.gz
  % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed   Time    Time     Time  Current
                                 Dload  Upload   Total   Spent    Left  Speed
100   124  100   124    0     0     56      0  0:00:02  0:00:02 --:--:--    56
100 23850  100 23850    0     0   6317      0  0:00:03  0:00:03 --:--:-- 30228
6007dba2d65db1a8fe32d22d28094fd5  /tmp/review/v1.20130909.tar.gz
6007dba2d65db1a8fe32d22d28094fd5
/home/asinha/rpmbuild/SOURCES/v1.20130909.tar.gz
removed ‘/tmp/review/v1.20130909.tar.gz’
removed directory: ‘/tmp/review’
[asinha@ankur-laptop  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
Note that the package owns the /usr/share/zsh directory which is owned by other
packages also. However, since this is for optional functionality, this is OK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function

[asinha@ankur-laptop  SRPMS]$ sudo repoquery -l zsh | egrep '^/usr/share/zsh$'
/usr/share/zsh

[asinha@ankur-laptop  SRPMS]$ rpmls
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/vcsh-1.20130909-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/bin/vcsh
drwxr-xr-x  /usr/share/doc/vcsh
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/vcsh/CONTRIBUTORS
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/vcsh/LICENSE
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/vcsh/README.md
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/vcsh/changelog
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/vcsh/hooks
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/man/man1/vcsh.1.gz
drwxr-xr-x  /usr/share/zsh
drwxr-xr-x  /usr/share/zsh/site-functions
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/zsh/site-functions/_vcsh
[asinha@ankur-laptop  SRPMS]$

 [+] 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
 [-] Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides
 [-] Development files go in -devel package
 [-] -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa
 [-] 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
 [-] 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
 [+] 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


Nitpicks:
- Please comment the patch, and send it upstream too.

- Since you're installing to pkgdocdir, and the %doc macro already takes
ownership of it, you don't need to specify it again. From
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_prefixes:
"Usually, "%doc" is used to list documentation files within %{_builddir} that
were not copied to %{buildroot}. A README and INSTALL file is usually included.
They will be placed in an appropriate directory under /usr/share/doc, whose
ownership does not need to be declared. "


Not blockers though. You can fix them up before you commit to SCM. 

+++ APPROVED +++
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur

-- 
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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]