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=583186
Dave Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalc...@redhat.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dmalc...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Dave Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com 2010-04-22 12:28:18 EDT
---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.[1]
rpmlint output (on a local build) is clean:
[da...@f13 coding]$ rpmlint
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python3-chardet-2.0.1-1.fc13.noarch.rpm
python3-chardet-2.0.1-1.fc13.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
OK: 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: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
OK: 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.
[da...@surprise review]$ wget
http://chardet.feedparser.org/download/python3-chardet-2.0.1.tgz
(snip)
[da...@surprise review]$ md5sum python3-chardet-2.0.1.tgz
python3-chardet-2.0.1-1.fc13.src/python3-chardet-2.0.1.tgz
ce4314913675a504aeda6a95fefdf482 python3-chardet-2.0.1.tgz
ce4314913675a504aeda6a95fefdf482
python3-chardet-2.0.1-1.fc13.src/python3-chardet-2.0.1.tgz
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
OK: 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]
OK: 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 MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
N/A: 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: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
N/A: 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]
OK: 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: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. [14]
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [15]
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
OK: 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]
OK: 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: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
N/A: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
N/A: 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. [19]
N/A: In the vast majority of cases, devel
