[Bug 1592138] Review Request: nng - nanomsg next generation: light-weight brokerless messaging

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592138

Pavel Zhukov <pzhukov@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Pavel Zhukov <pzhukov@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #5)

> I'd sooner just use a separate package and be done with it. I personally
> don't see the point/need to move it to another package as it's all dev docs
> but I don't have the time or interest to argue the point either.

Approved then.
I can help with maintainership if needed since I'm 0MQ/nanomsg user anyway.

fedora-review is quite old so reviewed manually: 

=== MUST === 
[+] : rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] 
[+] [nng] : The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
[+] : The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . 
[+] : The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[+] [MIT] : The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] : The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
[+] : 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 %license.
[+] : The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] : The spec file for the package [+]  be legible.
[+] : 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.
[+] : The package [+]  successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
[+] : 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 [+]  have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number [+]  be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[+] : 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.
[N/A] : The spec file [+]  handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[+] : 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. [10]
[+] : Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[+] : 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. 
[+] : 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. 
[+] : 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)
[+] : Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. 
[+] : Each package must consistently use macros. 
[+] : The package must contain code, or permissible content. 
[!] : 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). 
[+] : 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. [18]
[N/A] : Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] : Development files must be in a -devel package. 
[+] : In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] : Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
[N/A] : 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. 
[+] : Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. 
[+] : All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[+] : Packages being added to the distribution [+]  NOT depend on any packages
which have been marked as being deprecated.


=== SHOULD ===
[N/A] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[N/A] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. 
[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. 
[+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures. 
[+] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package
should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[N/A] 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. 
[N/A] 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] 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. 
[+] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't,
work with upstream to add them where they make sense.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nng-1.0.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          nng-devel-1.0.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          nng-utils-1.0.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          nng-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          nng-debugsource-1.0.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          nng-1.0.0-1.fc29.src.rpm
nng.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nanomsg -> groomsman
nng.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) brokerless -> broker less,
broker-less, brokenness
nng.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C nanomsg next generation: light-weight
brokerless messaging
nng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nanomsg -> groomsman
nng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability ->
availability, sociability, implacability
nng.x86_64: W: no-documentation
nng-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nanomsg -> groomsman
nng.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nanomsg -> groomsman
nng.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) brokerless -> broker less,
broker-less, brokenness
nng.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C nanomsg next generation: light-weight
brokerless messaging
nng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nanomsg -> groomsman
nng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability,
sociability, implacability
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/XBIP7DB3WAUUA53XQS2W4PNUB6NQFVLE/




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux