[Bug 248899] Review Request: kdelibs3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - Libraries

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

 



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: kdelibs3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - Libraries


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248899





------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  2007-07-20 17:00 EST -------
Now the fun part of the review: the manual checks (on -15). :-)

MUST Items:
! rpmlint output: see above (comment #17)
+ named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines
! spec file name doesn't match base package name, please rename to 
kdelibs3.spec
+ 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
  ! except for the dot at the end of the -devel summary ;-)
  + no non-UTF-8 characters
  ! relevant documentation not included
    See rpmlint output.
  + RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used (%configure macro)
  + debuginfo package is valid
  * .la files:
    What's the status of these? Are they still needed with the lib loader 
patch?
  + I'll give the static library kdefakes_nonpic.a a pass, as I'm sure there's 
a reason this is in a .a file, and as creating a -static subpackage doesn't 
make sense because this lib is static only.
  + no duplicated system libraries
  + no rpaths (I ran readelf -d on the shared objects and binaries on both the 
i386 and x86_64 version)
  + giving the config file in /usr a pass, as KDE has always 
used /usr/share/config
  + no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply
  + no GUI executables, so no .desktop file needed
  ! rpmlint doesn't like the one included desktop file (kresources.desktop, 
which calls kcmshell kresources). It isn't being installed according to the 
guidelines either (desktop-file-install).
  + no timestamp-clobbering file commands
  + _smp_mflags used
  + scriptlets are valid
  + not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply
  ! conflicts:
    + the -devel conflict (explicit Conflicts) is OK
    ! but the file conflict on /usr/share/config/ui/ui_standards.rc with the 
KDE 4 kdelibs isn't!
+ complies with all the legal guidelines
! license not included as %doc (see rpmlint output)
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ source matches upstream:
  MD5SUM: 50ed644f2ec91963570fe2b155652957
  SHA1SUM: 45f278311f20d2eb317f2175259f861c0bcf17a9
+ builds on at least one arch (F8 i386 mock, F8 x86_64 mock)
+ no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed
+ all required BuildRequires listed (it wouldn't build in mock otherwise ;-) )
+ no translations in original tarball, so translation/locale guidelines don't 
apply
  ! That makes me think: Do we need a compat kde-i18n too? Looks like we 
do. :-(
+ ldconfig correctly called in %post and %postun
+ package not relocatable
+ ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories 
owned by another package)
! duplicate files in %files: %{_bindir}/dcopidl* (in -devel) not excluded 
from %{_bindir}/* in main package
! permissions: see rpmlint output
+ %clean section present and correct
+ macros used where possible
+ no non-code content
+ large API docs are already in -apidocs
+ no %doc files, so no possible issues with %doc files required at runtime
+ all header files in -devel
+ no -static package needed
+ no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed
+ /usr/lib/*.so symlinks are correctly in -devel
+ /usr/lib/kde3/*.so plugins and /usr/lib/kdeinit_*.so (NOT symlinks) are 
correctly NOT in -devel
+ -devel requires %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
* .la files: These are OK iff they're really needed, thus my question whether 
they really are. ;-)
+ no GUI programs, so no .desktop file needed
+ buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install
  (nitpick: mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to protect against symlink attack missing 
here too)
+ 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 and x86_64)
* Skipping the "all architectures" test, no access to PPC.
* Not testing if package functions as expected.
+ scriptlets are sane
+ -apidocs subpackage Requires: %{name} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}:%{version} which 
is OK
+ no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant
+ no file dependencies


To sum up:
* Can you please address the issues found by rpmlint?
* Are the .la files still needed with the lib loader patch?
* The file conflict on ui_resources.rc needs fixing.
* kresources.desktop isn't installed according to the guidelines, and isn't 
valid according to rpmlint.
* please %exclude %{_bindir}/dcopidl* from the main package

-- 
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

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