Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469460 --- Comment #1 from Owen Taylor <otaylor@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-03 19:06:36 EDT --- Looks very good in general. Couple of small problem. X - COPYING file upstream needs fixing X - Missing requiements on gobject-introspection[-devel] for directories X - Shouldn't own %{_datadir}/gir Details below. Also, I really don't like "metadata" at all for this as I said in the gobject-intropsection API review. We don't need to overload that term more. Can you change the summary/descriptions to say "introspection data"? [*] OK or not applicable [X] Problem [-] Not checked Musts ====== [*] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. gir-repository.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 6) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 [*] 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 on Package Naming Guidelines . [*] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [*] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. COPYING in the distro is GPLv2+, no other indication of license. [*] 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. [*] The spec file must be written in American English. [*] 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/). [-] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SVN snapshot [*] The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [*] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [*] 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. [*] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [*] 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 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. [X] 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. main package require gobject-introspection for %{libdir}/girepository. Devel should require gobject-introspection-devel and have %{_datadir}/gir/* in the file list since the directory is coming from gobject-introspection-devel. [*] A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [*] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [*] Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). [*] Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . [*] The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines . [*] 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) [*] 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. [*] Header files must be in a -devel package. [*] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [*] Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [*] 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. OK exception IMO. (I think the the .so files at least need the API version in them .. /usr/lib/libgirepo-Clutter-custom.so should have 0.8 in the name somewhere. But that's an upstream issue.) [*] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [*] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [*] 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 the 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. [X] 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. See above. [*] At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. See above [*] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 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. [*] 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. See MockTricks for details on how to do this. Hard to do since gobject-introspection isn't yet in rawhide. [-] 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. [*] 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. [*] 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. [*] 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. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review