https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972860
--- Comment #1 from Dridi Boukelmoune <dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com> --- Hi, During my review I've found issues that look like blockers. > 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] $ rpmlint SRPMS/abakus-0.92-1.fc20.src.rpm RPMS/x86_64/abakus-0.92-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm abakus.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bc -> BC, bx, b abakus.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bc -> BC, bx, b abakus.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/abakus-0.92/COPYING abakus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abakus 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. The missing man page should not be an issue for a GUI app. For the FSF address, it's in all source file headers, but only the COPYING file should be an issue. For the makeself package, I've solved this by adding the license as a second upstream source to override the outdated file. Abakus not being maintained, it's probably useless to ask the upstream to fix this. Makeself review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989015 Spec sample: Source1: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt I suppose this is not ok until the licensing issue is solved. > 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. [2] . OK > MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK > 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. [3] Not OK, more like GPLv2+ according to source files headers. > 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.[4] OK > MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] OK > MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] OK > MUST: 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. OK > MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. [7] OK (x86_64) There are warnings though. > 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in > bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work > on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the > corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] I cannot test other architectures (maybe i686). > MUST: 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. OK > MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the > %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] n/a > MUST: 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] n/a > MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] 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. [12] n/a > 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. [13] OK > MUST: 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)[14] OK > MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > with executable permissions, for example. [15] OK > MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] OK > MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] OK > MUST: 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). [18] n/a > 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. [18] OK > MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [19] n/a > MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [20] n/a > MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = > %{version}-%{release} [21] n/a > MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be > removed in the spec if they are built.[19] n/a > 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. 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. [22] Not OK: not used in the spec, not found in the cmake install. Or maybe I'm missing some cmake convention ? > MUST: 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. [23] OK > MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] OK > 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. [25] n/a > SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should > contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26] n/a > SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] mock -r fedora-18-x86_64 abakus-0.92-1.fc20.src.rpm: Not OK (fedora-1[89]-x86_64 The mock builds consistently fail: RPM build errors: File must begin with "/": %{_iconsdir}/hicolor/*x*/apps/*.png Inside the mock roots I get this: rpmbuild --showrc | grep icon -14: _kde4_iconsdir %_kde4_sharedir/icons > SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all > supported architectures. [28] Cannot tested > SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A > package should not segfault instead of running, for example. OK Works fine on my x86_64 laptop with XFCE. Messages in stderr: abakus(2575)/kdeui (KIconLoader): Error: standard icon theme "oxygen" not found! abakus(2575)/kdeui (kdelibs): Shortcut for KAction "select_edit" "Select Editor" set with QShortcut::setShortcut()! See KAction documentation. > SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, > and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29] n/a > SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package > using a fully versioned dependency. [21] n/a > 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. [30] n/a > 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. [31] n/a > SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it > doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32] No man page, should not be a problem for a GUI app. Dridi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ouHq0yjyzH&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
