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: bandsaw - A syslog monitoring program for the GNOME desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234326 dtimms@xxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dtimms@xxxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From dtimms@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-28 10:56 EST ------- bandsaw review: (In reply to comment #4) > new spec: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/bandsaw/bandsaw.spec Disclaimer: I am not a reviewer nor sponsor, and this is my first "review like" submission. >BuildRequires: pygtk2-devel, gnome-python2-devel, gnome-doc-utils, gettext, desktop-file-utils, scrollkeeper My personal preference is to limit each line to 80 chars. You can have multiple BR entries, perhaps splitting of the last two/3 items. > %post > update-desktop-database &> /dev/null ||: - I don't know if it makes a difference, but the snippet shows || : yum localinstall the .src.rpm emits the following: warning: user damien does not exist - using root warning: group damien does not exist - using root Installing: bandsaw ###################### [29/30]warning: user damien does not exist - using root warning: group damien does not exist - using root - I think this is not a problem (on the fedora buils sys), but can be solved by installing mock and building the src.rpm as the mock user ? New lines: - please be consistent with the new line approach {double} you took between BR and %description, but haven't continued with all the way through. spelling: postum MUST Items: .x rpmlint result: W: bandsaw non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/bandsaw.schemas E: bandsaw no-binary - Please use the output of rpmlint -i for more info to solve these. ./ named according to the Package Naming Guidelines: matches upstream project and source download name. ./ spec file name matches the base package bandsaw.spec . package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. ./ package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license: - web site indicates GPL and upstream source includes GPLv2. ./ License field in the package spec file must match the actual license: - GPL ./ source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, so text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc: - COPYING is included as required. ./ The spec file must be written in American English. .? spec file for the package MUST be legible: - at this stage, it is not obvious to me the need for: %define debug_package %{nil} %{!?python_sitearch: %define python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib(1)")} Can you point to an existing fedora spec that uses similar ? ./ source in .src.rpm matches upstream md5sum: - md5sum bandsaw-0.3.0.tar.gz /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/bandsaw-0.3.0.tar.gz 22312a8bccc283d29db55074c69b6073 bandsaw-0.3.0.tar.gz 22312a8bccc283d29db55074c69b6073 /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/bandsaw-0.3.0.tar.gz ./ successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms: i386 {athlon} .? If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture - : - only tried on i386{i686/athlon} and no excludearchs listed. - have you tested on x86_64 or other arch ? .? build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires: - no listed BR is in the auto included list, the package built on my system after yum localinstall the .src.rpm installed lots of -devel rpms. - yet to try mock build. .? spec file MUST handle locales properly: - neither find_lang macro nor %{_datadir}/locale are used. ./ has no shared library files ./ not relocatable and does not use Prefix: /usr .? package must own all directories that it creates: - doesn't install anything currently. ./ A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing: - does not appear to. .? Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. .? must have a %clean section, containing rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT): - Included. Is there a preference for the %{x} style ? .? Each package must consistently use macros: - debug_package doesn't seem to be used. What is it's purpose ? ./ The package must contain code, or permissable content. - contains a GUI app ./ Large documentation files: - total doc is 35kB .x %doc files must not affect the runtime of the application: - currently no files are installed at all. ./ Header files must be in a -devel package: - no header files. ./ Static libraries must be in a -static package: - no static libraries. ./ has no pkgconfig(.pc) files. ./ library files with a suffix: no libraries ./ devel packages must require the base package: - no -devel package ./ Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives - no .la's .x Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install >+ desktop-file-install --vendor= --delete-original --dir /var/tmp/bandsaw-0.3.0-2.fc7-root-root/usr/share/applications /var/tmp/bandsaw-0.3.0-2.fc7-root-root//usr/share/applications/bandsaw.desktop /var/tmp/bandsaw-0.3.0-2.fc7-root-root/usr/share/applications/bandsaw.desktop: warning: The 'Application' category is not defined by the desktop entry specification. Please use one of "AudioVideo", "Audio", "Video", "Development", "Education", "Game", "Graphics", "Network", "Office", "Settings", "System", "Utility" instead - Application category is not defined in: http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html. Please remove. - GTK;Monitor; would be additional suitable categories - no GenericName= is defined - .desktop does not get installed. .? Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. .? At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT): - it includes $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as required, but then uses eg %{_datadir} in the same command. I think it would make sense to keep to the % method. ./ All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: ./ If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it: included. ./ The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages: - no other translations available .todo package builds in mock. - package does not install anything currently; I'll get to this once other issues have been taken care of. .? The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures: - this is a python/gtk/glade program. Is python bytecode crossplatform, ie will it just work on any platform ? If so should it be noarch ? .x package functions as described - the package did not install it's bits. typing bands{tab} there is no autocomplete, and updatedb shows only my /usr/src/ bandsaw files. . If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. . Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. ./ no pkgconfig(.pc) files: python. ./ no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review