Bug 461429
Summary: | Review Request: zsync - Incremental file-transfer program without special server | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ian Burrell <ianburrell> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | christoph.wickert, debarshir, fedora-package-review, john.e.anderson, mail, notting, pahan |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-03-08 19:47:18 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
Ian Burrell
2008-09-07 21:06:25 UTC
Only minor issue I see: rpmlint /var/lib/mock//fedora-9-i386/result/*rpm zsync.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/zsync-0.5/README Can be fixed with iconv Otherwise builds and runs well for me on fedora 9 and rawhide. Hello again, I'm doing a preview. This is not a full review, as I am not sponsored yet, but it should help get it in shape. FIX - MUST: rpmlint, zsync.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/zsync-0.5/README OK - MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: package %{name} matches spec in the format %{name}.spec FIX - MUST: Packaging guidlines, zlib is in the source, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries OK - MUST: Fedora approved license FIX - MUST: The License field must match the actual license. It looks like they're actually using Artistic 2.0 OK - MUST: package includes the text of the license(s) in in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK - MUST: Spec file is legible OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source 08beaf3fa95f16d8a2db2f7f3ea21196 OK - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. OK - MUST: No excludes needed FIX - MUST: Dependencies, add zlib to BuildRequires when you patch it to not use the one in the source OK - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. OK - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section OK - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros OK - MUST: The package contains code OK - MUST: No large documentation files for a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files in %doc don't affect the runtime of the application OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives ( once zlib is gone ) OK - MUST: Console app, no .desktop needed OK - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. OK - MUST: All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8 OK - SHOULD: Builds in mock OK - SHOULD: The package compiles on all arch OK - SHOULD: Package runs as described So it still needs a little work. Action items: - Can you please check out the license and confirm that it is indeed artistic 2.0? - The one warning on rpmlint as mentioned before - You would have to take care of the zlib situation to get this to pass review Hope this helps! Once again, not a full review. @ Debarshi: Sorry for "stealing" your review, but I promised to finish John's pre-review for educational purposes before I sponsor him. I hope you don't mind. @ John: Sorry I missed your review because you CC'ed me after you did it. Most things look good so far, nevertheless here is a complete re-review. Here we co REVIEW FOR 180523f1a837f61076563cef5929f72d zsync-0.5-1.fc9.src.rpm FIX - MUST: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/zsync-* zsync.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/zsync-0.5/README 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Although this is minor please fix with iconv as John said in comment #1 OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec FIX - MUST: The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines - the package builds against the zlib in the source, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries - The timestamp of the source is no preserved, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps - NEWS is missing from %doc OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (Artistic License v2) and meets the Licensing Guidelines FIX - MUST: The License field in the package spec file does not match the actual license. Should be "Artistic 2.0+" instead of "Artistic clarified" (+ comes from the "or any later version..."-statement in the headers of the sources) OK - MUST: The source package includes the text of the license in its own file, and it is included in %doc OK - MUST: The spec file is written in American English OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by md5sum 08beaf3fa95f16d8a2db2f7f3ea21196 OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i386 OK - MUST: The package has no known ExcludeArches OK - MUST: No build dependencies except for those from the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: No locales that need to be handled with %find_lang OK - MUST: No shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, no need to call ldconfig in %post and %postun OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates (only %{_docdir}/zsync-0.5) OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly, %files section includes a %defattr(...) line OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT FIX - MUST: The package does not consistently use macros. Use http://zsync.moria.org.uk/download/zsync-%{version}.tar.bz2 as SourceURL because then you only need to change the version tag on updates OK - MUST: The package contains code, no permissable content OK - MUST: No large documentation files for a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application OK - MUST: No header files that need to be in a -devel package OK - MUST: No static libraries that need a -static package OK - MUST: Packages does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files must, no need to require pkgconfig OK - MUST: The Package does not contain any .la libtool archives OK - MUST: No GUI application, no need for a %{name}.desktop file OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK - MUST: The package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install OK - MUST: All filenames in the package are be valid UTF-8 OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described OK - SHOULD: The package contains the latest stable release of the application NEEWSWORK Please fix all issued and then I will approve the package. (In reply to comment #3) > @ Debarshi: > Sorry for "stealing" your review, but I promised to finish John's pre-review > for educational purposes before I sponsor him. I hope you don't mind. No problem. I got a bit busy with fixing some of my packages before the freeze deadline, so it is good that you took it. :-) Ian, is there anything we can do for you to get this review going again? *** Bug 478617 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Hopefully Ian will react soon, otherwise we might as well close this bug and reopen #478617 Closing this bug now in favor of bug # 478617 because Fabian still wants to maintain the package. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 478617 *** |