Bug 639346

Spec URL: http://npmccallum.fedorapeople.org/banshee/gudev-sharp.spec
SRPM URL:
http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/npmccallum/banshee/fedora-14/SRPMS/gudev-sharp-0.1-2.fc14.src.rpm


* Sun Oct 03 2010 Nathaniel McCallum <nathaniel> - 0.1-2
- Fix -devel requires (pkgconfig, base package)
- Disable debuginfo

I'll review it

Koji scratch build for F-14 (currently wip):

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2510247

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

rpmlint is not silent:

work ~: rpmlint Desktop/gudev-sharp-*
gudev-sharp.i686: E: no-binary
gudev-sharp.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gudev-sharp-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
work ~: 

However all these messages have the same origin as the similar messages in case of pure erlang applications: we're installing (almost) arch-independent data into arch-dependent directory. But this is the way how it is designed to work, so we should disregard these messages.

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.

+/- The package almost meets the Packaging Guidelines except the issue with unowned directory (see below).

+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Seems to be strict LGPLv2 (w/o notice regarding possible relicensing under further LGPLv2+ licenses).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum mono-gudev-sharp-GUDEV_SHARP_0_1-0-g2c53e2f.tar.gz*
37f41e617274a0ab714fb85b57da24ce0c29e24fcf373fec80eb99b6464ca2fb  mono-gudev-sharp-GUDEV_SHARP_0_1-0-g2c53e2f.tar.gz
37f41e617274a0ab714fb85b57da24ce0c29e24fcf373fec80eb99b6464ca2fb  mono-gudev-sharp-GUDEV_SHARP_0_1-0-g2c53e2f.tar.gz.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.

- The package MUST own all directories that it creates. Unfortunately it doesn't claim ownership on %{_libdir}/mono/%{name}-1.0. Please fix it (simply listing %{_libdir}/mono/%{name}-1.0 instead of %{_libdir}/mono/%{name}-1.0/%{name}.dll would be enough).

+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
+ The "devel" sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}/
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) file is properly placed in *-devel sub-package and necessary runtime dependency is added.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


Almost done. Please fix the issue with unowned directory and I'll finish this review.

Spec URL: http://npmccallum.fedorapeople.org/banshee/gudev-sharp.spec
SRPM URL:
http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/npmccallum/banshee/fedora-14/SRPMS/gudev-sharp-0.1-3.fc14.src.rpm

* Mon Oct 04 2010 Nathaniel McCallum <nathaniel> - 0.1-3
- Fix directory ownership

Ok, I don't see any other issues wo this package is

APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: gudev-sharp
Short Description: C# bindings for gudev
Owners: npmccallum chkr
Branches: f13 f14
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

clutter-sharp-0-0.8.20090828.fc14,gkeyfile-sharp-0.1-3.fc14,gudev-sharp-0.1-3.fc14,gio-sharp-0.2-2.fc14,gtk-sharp-beans-2.14.0-2.fc14,banshee-1.8.0-4.fc14,banshee-community-extensions-1.8.0-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clutter-sharp-0-0.8.20090828.fc14,gkeyfile-sharp-0.1-3.fc14,gudev-sharp-0.1-3.fc14,gio-sharp-0.2-2.fc14,gtk-sharp-beans-2.14.0-2.fc14,banshee-1.8.0-4.fc14,banshee-community-extensions-1.8.0-2.fc14

clutter-sharp-0-0.8.20090828.fc14, gkeyfile-sharp-0.1-3.fc14, gudev-sharp-0.1-3.fc14, gio-sharp-0.2-2.fc14, gtk-sharp-beans-2.14.0-2.fc14, banshee-1.8.0-4.fc14, banshee-community-extensions-1.8.0-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update clutter-sharp gkeyfile-sharp gudev-sharp gio-sharp gtk-sharp-beans banshee banshee-community-extensions'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clutter-sharp-0-0.8.20090828.fc14,gkeyfile-sharp-0.1-3.fc14,gudev-sharp-0.1-3.fc14,gio-sharp-0.2-2.fc14,gtk-sharp-beans-2.14.0-2.fc14,banshee-1.8.0-4.fc14,banshee-community-extensions-1.8.0-2.fc14

clutter-sharp-0-0.8.20090828.fc14, gkeyfile-sharp-0.1-3.fc14, gudev-sharp-0.1-3.fc14, gio-sharp-0.2-2.fc14, gtk-sharp-beans-2.14.0-2.fc14, banshee-1.8.0-4.fc14, banshee-community-extensions-1.8.0-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.