Attachment 153195 Details for Bug 234750 – Complete review

Complete review

avr-binutils review.html (text/html), 9.37 KB, created by Trond Danielsen on 2007-04-20 16:33:05 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Trond Danielsen

Created: 2007-04-20 16:33:05 UTC

Size: 9.37 KB

patch

obsolete

><html xmlns:tomboy="http://beatniksoftware.com/tomboy" xmlns:link="http://beatniksoftware.com/tomboy/link" xmlns:size="http://beatniksoftware.com/tomboy/size"><head><META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title>avr-binutils review</title><style type="text/css">
>        
>	body {  }
>	h1 { font-size: xx-large;
>     	     font-weight: bold;
>     	     color: red;
>     	     text-decoration: underline; }
>	div.note { overflow: auto;
>		   position: relative;
>		   border: 1px solid black;
>		   display: block;
>		   padding: 5pt;
>		   margin: 5pt; 
>		   white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; /* Mozilla */
> 	      	   white-space: -pre-wrap;     /* Opera 4 - 6 */
> 	      	   white-space: -o-pre-wrap;   /* Opera 7 */
> 	      	   white-space: pre-wrap;      /* CSS3 */
> 	      	   word-wrap: break-word;      /* IE 5.5+ */ }
>	</style></head><body><div class="note" id="avr-binutils review" style="width:867;"><a name="#avr-binutils review"></a><h1>avr-binutils review</h1>
>
>
>'''MUST Items:'''
>
> - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
>[trondd@localhost ~]$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/avr-binutils-*
>W: avr-binutils non-standard-dir-in-usr avr
>
>This warning can obviously be ignored.
>
> - MUST: The package must be named according to the [:Packaging/NamingGuidelines:Package Naming Guidelines].
>OK.
>
> - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package `%{name}`, in the format `%{name}.spec` unless your package has an exemption on [:Packaging/NamingGuidelines: Package Naming Guidelines].
>OK
>
> - MUST: The package must meet the [:Packaging/Guidelines: Packaging Guidelines].
>OK
>
> - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#Legal legal section of Packaging 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. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (<a href="http://www.ioccc.org/">http://www.ioccc.org/</a>).
>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 [:Packaging/SourceURL: 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 supported architecture.
>OK. Tested on rawhide-i386 and fc6-x86_64 (april 01 2007)
>
> - 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` needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding `ExcludeArch` line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: [<a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179258">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179258</a> FE-ExcludeArch-x86], [<a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179259">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179259</a> FE-ExcludeArch-x64], [<a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179260">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179260</a> FE-ExcludeArch-ppc]
>
> - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in `BuildRequires`, except for any that are listed in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines]; inclusion of those as `BuildRequires` is optional. Apply common sense.
>OK. Builds in mock.
>
> - 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. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (<a href="http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html">http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html</a>), as it is safe to assume that those directories exist.
>OK. Since binutils is the first package to be installed, is it natural that it is the owner of the<a href=" /usr/%target"> /usr/%target</a> folder? I think so.
>
> - 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.
>OK
>
> - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains `rm -rf %{buildroot}` ([wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT]).
>OK
>
> - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#macros macros section of Packaging Guidelines]. 
>OK
>
> - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines]. 
>OK
>
> - MUST: Large documentation files should 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 should be removed in the spec.
>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. This is described in detail in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#desktop desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines]. 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.
>OK
>
>
>'''SHOULD Items:'''
>
> - 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.
>No
>
> - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
>OK. Tested on both rawhide-i386 and fc6-x86_64
>
> - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
>Only tested on i386 and x86_64
>
> - 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,<a href=" /usr/bin"> /usr/bin</a>, or<a href=" /usr/sbin"> /usr/sbin</a> consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself.  Please see [:Packaging/Guidelines#FileDeps: File Dependencies] in the Guidelines for further information.
>OK
>
>----
>CategoryExtras
></div></body></html>

<html xmlns:tomboy="http://beatniksoftware.com/tomboy" xmlns:link="http://beatniksoftware.com/tomboy/link" xmlns:size="http://beatniksoftware.com/tomboy/size"><head><META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title>avr-binutils review</title><style type="text/css">
        
	body {  }
	h1 { font-size: xx-large;
     	     font-weight: bold;
     	     color: red;
     	     text-decoration: underline; }
	div.note { overflow: auto;
		   position: relative;
		   border: 1px solid black;
		   display: block;
		   padding: 5pt;
		   margin: 5pt; 
		   white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; /* Mozilla */
 	      	   white-space: -pre-wrap;     /* Opera 4 - 6 */
 	      	   white-space: -o-pre-wrap;   /* Opera 7 */
 	      	   white-space: pre-wrap;      /* CSS3 */
 	      	   word-wrap: break-word;      /* IE 5.5+ */ }
	</style></head><body><div class="note" id="avr-binutils review" style="width:867;"><a name="#avr-binutils review"></a><h1>avr-binutils review</h1>


'''MUST Items:'''

 - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
[trondd@localhost ~]$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/avr-binutils-*
W: avr-binutils non-standard-dir-in-usr avr

This warning can obviously be ignored.

 - MUST: The package must be named according to the [:Packaging/NamingGuidelines:Package Naming Guidelines].
OK.

 - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package `%{name}`, in the format `%{name}.spec` unless your package has an exemption on [:Packaging/NamingGuidelines: Package Naming Guidelines].
OK

 - MUST: The package must meet the [:Packaging/Guidelines: Packaging Guidelines].
OK

 - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#Legal legal section of Packaging 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. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (<a href="http://www.ioccc.org/">http://www.ioccc.org/</a>).
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 [:Packaging/SourceURL: 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 supported architecture.
OK. Tested on rawhide-i386 and fc6-x86_64 (april 01 2007)

 - 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` needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding `ExcludeArch` line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: [<a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179258">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179258</a> FE-ExcludeArch-x86], [<a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179259">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179259</a> FE-ExcludeArch-x64], [<a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179260">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179260</a> FE-ExcludeArch-ppc]

 - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in `BuildRequires`, except for any that are listed in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines]; inclusion of those as `BuildRequires` is optional. Apply common sense.
OK. Builds in mock.

 - 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. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (<a href="http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html">http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html</a>), as it is safe to assume that those directories exist.
OK. Since binutils is the first package to be installed, is it natural that it is the owner of the<a href=" /usr/%target"> /usr/%target</a> folder? I think so.

 - 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.
OK

 - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains `rm -rf %{buildroot}` ([wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT]).
OK

 - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#macros macros section of Packaging Guidelines]. 
OK

 - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines]. 
OK

 - MUST: Large documentation files should 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 should be removed in the spec.
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. This is described in detail in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#desktop desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines]. 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.
OK


'''SHOULD Items:'''

 - 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.
No

 - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
OK. Tested on both rawhide-i386 and fc6-x86_64

 - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
Only tested on i386 and x86_64

 - 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,<a href=" /usr/bin"> /usr/bin</a>, or<a href=" /usr/sbin"> /usr/sbin</a> consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself.  Please see [:Packaging/Guidelines#FileDeps: File Dependencies] in the Guidelines for further information.
OK

----
CategoryExtras
</div></body></html>

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 234750: 151389 | 153195