Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248898 kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-19 17:11 EST ------- kdelibs 4 fixed now, so here's the review: MUST Items: ! rpmlint output: * W: kdepimlibs no-documentation -> At least the license should be included as %doc. (I'll take the blame for that one. ;-) ) * W: kdepimlibs-devel no-documentation -> OK, this one is acceptable, but like for Soprano, we should generate apidocs for kdelibs and kdepimlibs before the F8 release. * W: kdepimlibs-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/kdepimlibs-3.91.0/mailtransport/servertest.h -> OK, this one is upstream's fault. + named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines ! spec file name doesn't match base package name, please rename to kdepimlibs.spec before import + Packaging Guidelines: + License LGPL OK, matches actual license + No known patent problems + No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components + Complies with the FHS + proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, Requires, BuildRequires, Summary, Description + no non-UTF-8 characters ! relevant documentation not included See "rpmlint output" above. + RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used (%cmake macro) + debuginfo package is valid + no static libraries nor .la files + no duplicated system libraries + no rpaths, at least on i386 (I ran readelf -d on the shared objects) + no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply + no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply + no executables, so no .desktop file present or needed + no timestamp-clobbering file commands + _smp_mflags used + scriptlets are valid + not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply + no conflicts + complies with all the legal guidelines ! license not included as %doc (see "rpmlint output" above) + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + source matches upstream: MD5SUM: 978712ededae818f2b9225897684b752 SHA1SUM: 9bb8202db3a7a5ee968cfb26c24800e3d08103de + builds on at least one arch (F8 i386 mock) + no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed + all build dependencies listed in CMakeLists.txt as well as cmake itself are listed in BuildRequires (However, an additional BuildRequires: doxygen will be needed for the -apidocs.) + no translations in original tarball, so translation/locale guidelines don't apply + ldconfig correctly called in %post and %postun + package not relocatable + ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories owned by another package) + no duplicate files in %files + permissions set properly + %clean section present and correct + macros used where possible + no non-code content + no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed + no %doc files, so no possible issues with %doc files required at runtime + all header files in -devel + no static libraries, so no -static package needed + no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed + /usr/lib/*.so symlinks are correctly in -devel + /usr/lib/kde4/*.so plugins (NOT symlinks) are correctly NOT in -devel + -devel requires %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + no .la files + no GUI programs (in fact, no executables at all), so no .desktop file needed + buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install But you know my usual nitpick by now. ;-) I recommend a: mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT after the: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to prevent a potential symlink attack as pointed out by the OpenSUSE folks. Though in this case my original packages didn't have it either, so I take part of the blame. Anyway, it's not required by the guidelines, so this is definitely not a blocker. + all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: + license already included upstream + no translations for description and summary provided by upstream + package builds in mock (Rawhide i386) * Skipping the "all architectures" test. + package functions as expected (at least the F7 version I tested did ;-) ) + scriptlets are sane + no subpackages other than -devel, so "Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency." is irrelevant + no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant + no file dependencies Please fix these before import: * add at least the license(s) as %doc * rename the specfile to kdepimlibs.spec With these changes, the package is APPROVED. These can be addressed at a later time: * add BuildRequires: doxygen * create an -apidocs subpackage -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review