Bug 225855
Summary: | Merge Review: gphoto2 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Debarshi Ray <debarshir> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | herrold, jnovy |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | debarshir:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2008-10-15 04:46:59 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
2007-01-31 18:57:38 UTC
MUST Items: OK - rpmlint is clean OK - follows Naming Guidelines OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines + Is it necessary to define multilib_arches? + Since the package no longer carries the library, it should not be mentioned in the description. + Source0 does not conform to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL packaging/rpm/package.spec.in and packaging/rpm/gphoto2.spec seem to have a non-functional URL. Upstream should be informed about it. + The --enable-docs and --enable-lockdev options could not be found in configure and configure.ac and look like remnants from libgphoto2. + Is --with-doc-dir really needed? Shouldn't it by %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} instead of %{_docdir}/%{name}? + To preserve timestamps you could consider using: make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT + Why not include ChangeLog and TODO in %doc? + Why not include contrib/simple-mtpupload in %doc? OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines xx - License field meets actual license + Should be GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses packaging/rpm/package.spec.in and packaging/rpm/gphoto2.spec wrongly mention LGPL. Upstream should be informed about it. OK - upstream license file included in %doc OK - spec file uses American English OK - spec file is legible OK - sources match upstream sources OK - package builds successfully OK - ExcludeArch for s390 and s390x + s390 and s390x are not Fedora supported architectures, yet. Out of curiosity, what is the reason for this? xx - redundant and extra build dependencies listed + libusb-devel and libexif-devel are brought in by libgphoto2-devel, lockdev-devel looks like an old requirement from libgphoto2, while pkgconfig is brought in by all the -devel packages providing *.pc files. xx - locales not handled properly + BuildRequires: gettext should be added. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files OK - no shared libraries OK - package is not relocatable OK - file and directory ownership OK - no duplicates in %file OK - file permissions set properly + The preferred attribute definition is: %defattr(-,root,root,-) OK - %clean present xx - macros not used consistently + Both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT notations used. + No need to enclose them within double quotes. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros only one style should be used. OK - contains code and permissable content OK - -doc is not needed OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime OK - no header files OK - no static libraries OK - no pkgconfig files OK - no library files OK - -devel is not needed OK - no libtool archives OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages OK - buildroot correctly prepped OK - all file names valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - upstream provides license text xx - no translations for description and summary OK - package builds in mock successfully OK - package builds on all supported architectures + s390 and s390x are excluded, which are not Fedora architectures. OK - package functions as expected OK - scriptlets are sane OK - subpackages are not needed OK - no pkgconfig files OK - no file dependencies If the package is creating the %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name} directory, it should either be removed or owned by the package because a package must own all directories that it creates. And I am only curious to know why this fails to build on s390 and s390x, and not why they are not Fedora-supported architectures. :-) Ping? This review seems to be stalled. Jindrich, according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/StalledReviews#Submitter_not_responding you need to respond within a week. Sorry, I was in Africa for 3 weeks with no internet access. I applied all your points except: + Why not include contrib/simple-mtpupload in %doc? reason: It contains perl script that could pull in a perl dependency, which shouldn't be otherwise needed. The questin is whether /usr/share/doc is a good place for scripts anyway. IIRC the s390(x) excluding is because it simply doesn't have USB support. Thanks for review! Just "chmod -x simple-mtpupload " and rpm will no longer pull perl as dependency (In reply to comment #5) + What is the need for two Source0 lines? The first one should be simply removed. + Unnecessary 'BuildRequires: pkgconfig' still remains. + You could look at Manuel's comment on simple-mtpupload, but its finally upto you. (In reply to comment #5) Fedora tends to prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo), so it would be nice if you could use it instead of %defattr(-,root,root). But this is not a blocker for the review. (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Fedora tends to prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) Updated. (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > + What is the need for two Source0 lines? The first one should be simply > removed. It was a typo, the older one should just have to go away. > > + Unnecessary 'BuildRequires: pkgconfig' still remains. > Removed. > + You could look at Manuel's comment on simple-mtpupload, but its finally upto > you. Well, putting executable stuff into /usr/share/doc is not a good idea, we should either package it to be actually executable in /usr/bin or not to package it at all. Just removing the executable attribute to fool RPM is not a solution IMO. Thanks for the review :) (In reply to comment #9) Looks like a rpmlint warning has crept in during the review: + [rishi@ginger x86_64]$ rpmlint gphoto2-2.4.2-3.fc10.x86_64.rpm gphoto2.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gphoto2-2.4.2/ChangeLog [rishi@ginger x86_64]$ Could be fixed as shown in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#file-not-utf8 Otherwise it looks fine. +---------------------------------+ | This package is APPROVED by me. | +---------------------------------+ Also replace %{buildroot} with %%{buildroot} in the %changelog stanza to avoid rpmlint warnings on the SRPM. Ping? Is there anything which is stopping us from closing this review? Nope, everything seems to be fixed now. Thanks. |