Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928609
Karel Volný <kvo...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whiteboard| |NEEDSWORK
--- Comment #7 from Karel Volný <kvo...@redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
"^" my notes
[+] reviewed, okay
Issues:
=======
- update-desktop-database is invoked when required
Note: desktop file(s) in xpra
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
^ seems like a false positive - filed bug #952593
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[+]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[+]: Package contains no static executables.
^ find rpms-unpacked/ | xargs file | grep static
[+]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
^ see comments #4/#5
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[+]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
^ GPLv2+
[+]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
^ there is rencode.pyx - http://code.google.com/p/rencode/
and python-webm - http://code.google.com/p/python-webm/
and a part of toonplayer - https://bitbucket.org/aalex/toonplayer
gl-hello.py => gl_texture_bind_test.py
^ this influences the license breakdown, rencode and toonplayer are GPLv3+ and
webm is BSD-like
[+]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[+]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[+]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[+]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[+]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in parti ,
python-wimpiggy
^ python-wimpiggy is the base package, it doesn't need to depend on anything
both xpra and parti depend od python-wimpiggy, I believe that {?_isa} is not
mandatory in this case
the problem is the "==" syntax, I cannot find this documented as valid,
single "=" should be used
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or
later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/kvolny/Projects/928609-xpra/licensecheck.txt
^ see bundled code discussion
[+]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
^ it is in wimpiggy which is required by all
[+]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[+]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[+]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[+]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[+]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[+]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[+]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked when required
Note: icons in xpra
[+]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[+]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 194560 bytes in 8 files.
^ note that the file NEWS is the same for all packages, could we have it
symlinked?
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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).
Python:
[+]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[+]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
^ note that the egg-infos don't look 100% correct, e.g. parti-all has License:
UNKNOWN
[+]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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.
[+]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[+]: Package functions as described.
[+]: Latest version is packaged.
[+]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
^ no translations at all
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[+]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[+]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: xpra-0.8.8-3.fc18.x86_64.rpm
parti-0.8.8-3.fc18.x86_64.rpm
python-wimpiggy-0.8.8-3.fc18.x86_64.rpm
xpra.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C screen for X
xpra.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xpra_Xdummy
parti.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary parti-repl
python-wimpiggy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compositing ->
composting, com positing, com-positing
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
^ see the initial comment
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint parti xpra python-wimpiggy
parti.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary parti-repl
xpra.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C screen for X
xpra.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xpra_Xdummy
python-wimpiggy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compositing ->
composting, com positing, com-positing
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
parti (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python
dbus-python
python(abi)
python-wimpiggy
xpra (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/python
PyOpenGL
config(xpra)
dbus-python
gstreamer
gstreamer-plugins-base
gstreamer-plugins-good
gstreamer-python
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit)
numpy
pulseaudio
pulseaudio-utils
pygtkglext
python(abi)
python-imaging
python-numeric
python-wimpiggy
rtld(GNU_HASH)
xorg-x11-drv-dummy
xorg-x11-drv-void
xorg-x11-server-Xvfb
xorg-x11-server-utils
python-wimpiggy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libXcomposite.so.1()(64bit)
libXdamage.so.1()(64bit)
libXfixes.so.3()(64bit)
libXrandr.so.2()(64bit)
libXtst.so.6()(64bit)
libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit)
libfreetype.so.6()(64bit)
libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit)
pycairo
pygobject2
pygtk2
python(abi)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
parti:
parti
parti(x86-64)
xpra:
config(xpra)
mimehandler(text/x-xpraconfig)
xpra
xpra(x86-64)
python-wimpiggy:
python-wimpiggy
python-wimpiggy(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
xpra: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/xpra/rencode/_rencode.so
xpra: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/xpra/stats/cymaths.so
xpra: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/xpra/wait_for_x_server.so
xpra: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/xpra/xor/cyxor.so
python-wimpiggy: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/wimpiggy/gdk/gdk_atoms.so
python-wimpiggy:
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/wimpiggy/lowlevel/bindings.so
^ see comments #4/#5
MD5-sum check
-------------
http://xpra.org/src/xpra-0.8.8.tar.xz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
0edc22f1512d2633f2d52047393c1bd7153b55c3dd7505190ed373420116f4f0
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
0edc22f1512d2633f2d52047393c1bd7153b55c3dd7505190ed373420116f4f0
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29
Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 928609
--
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=FsMxOrYZCY&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
