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: gnome-nds-thumbnailer - Thumbnailer for Nintendo DS ROM files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427669 erik-fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |erik-fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From erik-fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-12 09:34 EST ------- (Please note I can only do pre-reviews, so someone else needs to approve this package) Feedback for gnome-nds-thumbnailer-1.0.2-1: MUST Items: - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint gnome-nds-thumbnailer.spec <no output> $ rpmlint gnome-nds-thumbnailer-1.0.2-1.fc9.i386.rpm gnome-nds-thumbnailer.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-nds-thumbnailer.schemas This warning can be ignored for gconf schemas OK! - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK! - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines. OK! - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. %config(noreplace) should be used instead on plain %config. However, I don't know for sure if this rule also applies to GConf schemas. Unknown - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK! - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Negative, spec file has license 'GPLv2' while the files COPYING and gnome-nds-thumbnailer.c from the tarball are 'GPLv2+' - MUST: 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 %doc. OK! - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK! - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). OK! - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ md5sum gnome-nds-thumbnailer-1.0.2.tar.bz2 316e43eb66828addae64038372c59ab9 gnome-nds-thumbnailer-1.0.2.tar.bz2 $ curl --silent http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/gnome-nds-thumbnailer/1.0/gnome-nds-thumbnailer-1.0.2.md5sum | grep gnome-nds-thumbnailer-1.0.2.tar.bz2 316e43eb66828addae64038372c59ab9 gnome-nds-thumbnailer-1.0.2.tar.bz2 OK! - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on Rawhide/Fedora 9 i386 and mock/Fedora 8 i386 OK! - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Unable to test on other arches - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. Building in mock returns this error: checking for gconftool-2... no configure: error: gconftool-2 is needed See `config.log' for more details. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.58503 (%build) Negative, BuildRequires: GConf2 needs to be added to the spec file - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. Package doesn't use locales OK! - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. Package doesn't contain shared libraries OK! - MUST: 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. Not applicable OK! - MUST: 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. Refer to the Guidelines for examples. Not applicable OK! - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK! - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK! - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK! - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. Negative, Please use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. Package contains only code, no further content OK! - MUST: Large documentation files should 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) Not applicable OK! - MUST: 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. OK! - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. Not applicable OK! - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. Not applicable OK! - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). Not applicable OK! - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. Not applicable OK! - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Not applicable OK! - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. Not applicable OK! - MUST: 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. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. 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. Package is a console only package, so there is no .desktop file OK! - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK! - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. OK! - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK! SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Source package contains COPYING file containing the license OK! - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Description and summary contain only English text OK! - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this. Negative, see the MUST: BuildRequires - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Unable to test - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. $ gnome-nds-thumbnailer Expects an input and an output file $ gnome-nds-thumbnailer --help Usage: gnome-nds-thumbnailer [OPTION...] [FILE...] Thumbnail Nintendo DS ROMs Help Options: -?, --help Show help options Application Options: -s, --size Size of the thumbnail in pixels --g-fatal-warnings Make all warnings fatal OK! - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. Scriplets are used to install the GConf schemas. This all looks sane OK! - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. Package doesn't contain any subpackages OK! - SHOULD: 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. Package doesn't contain pkgconfig files OK! - SHOULD: 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. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines for further information. Not applicable OK! ----- Conclusion: - License tag needs to be changed to GPLv2+ - BuildRequires: GConf2 needs to be added - $RPM_BUILD_ROOT needs to be changed to %{buildroot} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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