https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6474
--- Comment #11 from Hans de Goede <h...@hansg.org> ---
Hi Kate,
Below is a full review of this package, see the Must Fix section at the end for
a summary of things to fix.
Regards,
Hans
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains static libraries but this is simply the way the
binary-only
upstream source works, so this is fine in this case
[x]: The main (non -devel) pkg contains unversioned .so files, these are in
a private %_libdir subdirectory and again this is just the way the
provided
binaries are.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is NOT licensed with an open-source compatible license
(it contains binaries which are only distributed in binary form)
this is why this is intended for rpmfusion-nonfree.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content (for rpmfusion)
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package uses ExclusiveArch, since the upstream binaries are only available
for that arch
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Rpmlint
-------
There are a ton of rpmlint warnings/errors for this package, but this
all have to do with the upstream provided binaries being what they
are, so these can all be waived / ignored.
===== Must Fix =====
[!] The .a files are static libraries which are only used link-time never
run-time.
These must be nmoved to the -devel package
[!] You have 2 'for i in ipu6 ipu6ep; do' loops and even do:
'mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/$i' twice. Please fold this into 1 loop
and
drop the duplicate mkdir.
[!] There are issues with directory ownership. Add:
%dir %{_libdir}/ipu6
%dir %{_libdir}/ipu6ep
To the main pkg %files; and
%dir /lib/firmware
%dir /lib/firmware/intel
To the -firmware subpkg %files.
[!] The -devel subpackage must have a "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}"
added to it so that installing it brings in the main package and so that
the -devel and main package are version locked
[!] De install command for the firmware files should be passed "-p" to preserve
their
timestamps
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug._______________________________________________
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
