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=479413


David Carter <dcar...@entertain-me.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dcar...@entertain-me.com




--- Comment #1 from David Carter <dcar...@entertain-me.com>  2009-01-10 
09:38:09 EDT ---
Hi, I'm not an approved reviewer yet, and am doing this as a practice review.
So while I'm making every effort to make this as complete and accurate a review
as possible, this can't be considered a final review.

MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.

rpmlint -i pywebdav-0.8-1.fc11.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint -i pywebdav-0.8-1.fc9.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

OK.

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines

According to the naming guidelines, this fits into the python exception for
upstream packages starting with py, so

OK.

MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.

OK

MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines

OK, including python specific guidelines

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.

OK.

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.

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.

OK

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.

OK. x86_64

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.

N/A

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.

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.

N/A

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.

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.

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. [14]

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.

Not really. For example, consider the line
%{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Which should be:
%{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root %{buildroot}

even though the first is given as an example in the documentation.


MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.

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).

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.

OK.

MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.

OK.

MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).

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.

OK.

MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}

OK.

MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.

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. 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.

OK.

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. [24]

OK.

MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).

OK.

MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

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.

OK.

SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.

OK.

SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

OK.

SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.

Unable to test on non-x86(_64) platforms

SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.

OK.

SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.

OK.

SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.

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.

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.

OK.

Summary - MINOR issues with use of macros in spec file.

I am curious though as to why the example server isn't included in either the
same package, or in a documentation package. I would expect to see it in
/usr/share/pywebdav-0.8. I really think this would be a worthwhile addition.

-- 
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@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to