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