Bug 617877
Summary: | Review Request: txmpp - A C++ XMPP library | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Silas Sewell <silas> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Chen Lei <supercyper1> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting, supercyper1 |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | supercyper1:
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: | 2010-07-26 23:50:05 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
Silas Sewell
2010-07-24 15:46:10 UTC
Spec is sane, only some minor issues: 1.BuildRequires: expat2-devel >= 2.0.1 expat2 don't exist in both Fedora and EPEL, why add expat2-devel as a BR? 2.%files devel %doc README.md You can safely ignore some rpmlint warnings(e.g. no documentation, wrong spell, etc.), duplicate files in %file are not needed normally. 3. Group for main package should be System Environment/Libraries SRPM URL: http://github.com/downloads/tidg/rpms/txmpp-0.0.2-2.fc13.src.rpm 1. This is a convenience flag for people wishing to use it on EL 5. txmpp requires expat 2.01 and EL 5 ships with expat 1.95. This allows someone to grab version 2.01 of expat and rename it to expat2 and it just works. I currently host a separate repository for EL 5 which does just that (http://github.com/tidg/rpms). Obviously this package isn't valid for EPEL 5. I can remove the flag for Fedora/EPEL6 if required. 2. Fixed 3. Fixed Thanks for looking it over. Forgot the rpmlint: [silas@tidg rpmbuild]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/*.rpm txmpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Spec Url: http://github.com/silas/rpms/raw/master/txmpp/txmpp.spec SRPM Url: http://github.com/downloads/silas/rpms/txmpp-0.0.2-3.fc14.src.rpm Move into my personal repository and removed expat2. [silas@tidg rpmbuild]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm txmpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. formal review here: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [FIXME?: covers this list and more] [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] 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. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. <<md5sum checksum>>dec646a9113aaada5eb423bfcd0f5a92 [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [=] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] 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. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] 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. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] 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. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 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. [=] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: 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. This package is approved! Thanks for the review Chen Lei! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: txmpp Short Description: C++ XMPP library Owners: silas Branches: F-13 EL-6 InitialCC: CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). Built and pushed. Thanks all. |