8:15 a.m.
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=668588
Andrew Elwell <andrew.elwell(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |andrew.elwell(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Elwell <andrew.elwell(a)gmail.com> 2011-01-12 09:15:54 EST
---
Informal review (as I'm still awaiting sponsorship):
MUST Items:
* rpmlint
[aelwell@pcitgtelwell pil]$ rpmlint python26-imaging*
python26-imaging.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve,
devil, revel
python26-imaging.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tk -> kt, t, k
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
-- false warning. OK
OK - Package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
-- hard coded python version is there for an explained reason
OK - Spec file in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
WARN - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
-- "All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment" -- they don't
(but
it's only a SHOULD)
OK - Package licensed with a Fedora approved license.
OK - License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK (it's in the README) - If source includes the text of the license(s) package
it in %{doc}.
OK - The spec file must be written in American English.
OK - The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK (fc14a54e1ce02a0225be8854bfba478e) - The sources must match the upstream
source URL md5sum.
OK (tested on RHEL5 + EPEL python26) - Package MUST successfully compile and
build into binary rpms
- unsucessful compile, build or work on an architecture should be listed
ExcludeArch.
-- each ExcludeArch has corresponding bugzilla no in comment adjacent.
OK - Build dependencies listed in BuildRequires.
OK - Spec file using the %find_lang macro for locales (not using
%{_datadir}/locale/*).
OK - If shared library files (not just symlinks), call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
OK - Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK - if relocatable, must be stared with rationalization
-- without this use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
OK - A package must own all directories that it creates, or require a package
which creates that directory.
OK - No duplicates in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception:
license texts in specific situations)[14]
OK - Permissions on files must be set properly.
OK -- Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
OK -- Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line.
OK - Each package must consistently use macros.
OK - The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - things in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
OK - Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - If library files with a suffix (libfoo.so.1.1), then plain .so in a
-devel package.
OK - -devel packages need fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives,
-- these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
OK - GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
-- installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
-- or explain why exempt in a comment in the spec file.
OK - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
Items below are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not
required to do.
N/A - query upstream if the source does not include license text(s) as a
separate file.
NO - description and summary in spec file should contain translations, if
available.
N/A (awaiting sponsorship) - The reviewer should test that the package builds
in mock.
Not Tested - The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
PARTIALLY DONE - The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described.
OK - If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
YES - Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
- 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]
- 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.
- your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't,
work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
Tested on a RHEL5 (clone) box + EPEL for dependencies -- Built OK and basic
functionality OK.
--
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.