Bug 456032
| Summary: | DeviceKit - Device Enumeration Framework | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | David Zeuthen <davidz> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Matthias Clasen <mclasen> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, mclasen, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mclasen:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-07-24 04:22:42 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
David Zeuthen
2008-07-21 02:13:57 UTC
See also bug 456033 and bug 456034. Hmm, rpmlint is busted, so no rpmlint check for now... Looking over the spec file informally, I notice 2 things: 1) you probably need to require udev for /etc/udev/rules.d ownership 2) the handling of %doc seems obscure. Whats the purpose of that ? rpmlint output: [mclasen@golem ~]$ rpmlint DeviceKit-002-0.git20080720.fc10.i386.rpm DeviceKit-devel-002-0.git20080720.fc10.i386.rpm DeviceKit-debuginfo-002-0.git20080720.fc10.i386.rpm DeviceKit.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.freedesktop.DeviceKit.conf DeviceKit.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/98-devkit.rules 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. I'd double-check, but I believe it is common practise to treat neither dbus conf files nor udev rules as conf files. package name: ok spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: - you should probably straighten the %doc stuff - Source: points to a nonexisting location, should just make it a filename and add a comment explaining that it is a git snapshot license: ok license field: ok license file: ok spec language: ok spec legibility: ok upstream sources: ok, see above for Source: tag problem ExcludeArch: n/a BuildRequires: ok locale handling: ok ldconfig: ok relocatable: n/a directory ownership: - need to Requires: udev for /etc/udev/rules.d duplicate files: ok permissions: ok %clean: ok macro use: consistent content: permissible large docs: n/a doc content: ok headers: ok static libs: n/a pc files: ok shared libs: ok devel deps: ok libtool archives: ok gui apps: n/a file/directory ownership: - /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces should be owned by dbus %install: ok utf8 filenames: ok (In reply to comment #3) > I'd double-check, but I believe it is common practise to treat neither dbus conf > files nor udev rules as conf files. Sure, of course these are not configuration files - rpmlint and/or the guidelines are just busted. (In reply to comment #2) > 1) you probably need to require udev for /etc/udev/rules.d ownership Should do that anyway. Fixed locally. > 2) the handling of %doc seems obscure. Whats the purpose of that ? The fact that some files are not in the root directory of the tarball. It's not particulary obscure. Suggestions on how to fix that welcome. (In reply to comment #4) > - Source: points to a nonexisting location, should just make it a filename Fixed. > and add a comment explaining that it is a git snapshot It's evident from the Release tag that it's a git snapshot. > - /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces should be owned by dbus Yeah, that's a D-Bus problem. Thanks for the review. (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #2) > > 2) the handling of %doc seems obscure. Whats the purpose of that ? > > The fact that some files are not in the root directory of the tarball. It's not > particulary obscure. Suggestions on how to fix that welcome. Just %doc README AUTHORS NEWS COPYING HACKING doc/TODO seemed to do what I wanted. I've uploaded new SPEC and SRPMS with all fixes at the same location - does this look OK? Thanks. Yes, looks good now. Even though the source url guidelines really want you put a comment there explaining how to go from git url to tarball.... New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: DeviceKit Short Description: Device Enumeration Framework Owners: davidz Branches: InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. |