https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 Steve Jenkins <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(matt_domsch@dell. | |com) --- Comment #12 from Steve Jenkins <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Booyah! Thanks, Matt! * Comment: Not sure how much additional review is needed, but in the spirit of keeping this moving right along and doing everything I can to change that review flag to +, I'll bite. :) MUST: rpmlint output (SRPM and spec): PASS libspf2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scammers -> stammers, slammers, scampers libspf2.src:45: W: macro-in-comment %{version} libspf2.src:253: W: macro-in-comment %doc libspf2.src:49: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 49, tab: line 26) libspf2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libspf2-1.2.10-d57d79fd.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. All are bogus, except for the spaces & tabs which isn't a deal killer (but is an easy fix). MUST: rpmlint output (RPMs): PASS libspf2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scammers -> stammers, slammers, scampers libspf2.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2.10-2 ['1.2.10-2.gitd57d79fd.fc21', '1.2.10-2.gitd57d79fd'] libspf2.i686: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/libspf2/INSTALL libspf2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libspf2-1.2.10-d57d79fd/src/libreplace/getopt.h libspf2-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US apidocs -> rapids libspf2-devel.i686: W: no-documentation libspf2-progs.i686: W: no-documentation libspf2-progs.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spf_example libspf2-progs.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spfquery.libspf2 libspf2-progs.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spftest libspf2-progs.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spfd.libspf2 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. I'm assuming upstream has been notified about the incorrect-fsf-address error (which is the only requirement when this error occurs, so not a show stopper). MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines: PASS MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines: PASS (BSD / LGPLv2+) MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license: PASS (Also says BSD / LGPLv2+ on the upstream website) 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 must be included in %doc: PASS MUST: The spec file must be written in American English: PASS MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible: PASS MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this: PASS MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture: PASS EL5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9416830 EL6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9416836 EL7: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9416840 F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9416843 F21: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9416939 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line: N/A MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense: PASS MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden: N/A MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun: PASS MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries: PASS MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker: N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory: PASS MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations): PASS MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example: PASS MUST: Each package must consistently use macros: PASS MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content: PASS MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity): N/A MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present: PASS MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package: NEEDSWORK (?) The description of of the -devel package says it "contains the header files and static libraries necessary for developing programs using the libspf2 (Sender Policy Framework) library." Does that mean we need a -static package AND a -devel package? Or is it acceptable to include these static libraries there? MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package: PASS MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}: NEEDSWORK - the %{?_isa} is missing MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built: PASS MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation: N/A MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages: PASS MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8: PASS 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: I did that for you! SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available: N/A SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock: PASS (used koji) SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures: PASS SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example: PASS SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity: PASS (although allowing me to be an arbiter of sanity is questionable... ;)) SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: NEEDSWORK (any harm in adding %{?_isa} to progs package, too?) SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb: N/A (no .pc file) SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself: N/A SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense: PASS Overall result - NEEDSWORK, but extremely minor stuff... and it's possible for Matt to talk me out of at least a couple of them if I'm misunderstanding them. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review