| Summary: | Review Request: rep-gtk - GTK+ binding for librep Lisp environment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Kim B. Heino <b> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, lemenkov, mihai, notting, rkhadgar, serge.de.souza |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | lemenkov:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | rep-gtk-0.90.5-4.fc15 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2011-04-25 02:41:18 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Bug Depends On: | 692537 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 496433, 692543 | ||
|
Description
Kim B. Heino
2011-03-31 14:13:33 UTC
*** Bug 431251 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I'll review it Please wait... Changes made in #692537 broke this package. I'll check and fix them first. Updated files: Spec URL: http://b.bbbs.net/sawfish/rep-gtk.spec SRPM URL: http://b.bbbs.net/sawfish/rep-gtk-0.90.5-2.fc15.src.rpm Koji scrathcbuild for F-16: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2997597 REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is almost silent:
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint rep-gtk-*
rep-gtk.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) librep -> lib rep, lib-rep, libretto
rep-gtk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librep -> lib rep, lib-rep, libretto
rep-gtk-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librep -> lib rep, lib-rep, libretto
rep-gtk-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
+ 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 meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ 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 (GPLv2 or later).
+ 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 rep-gtk-0.90.5.tar.bz2*
c4ce0d5c560f0846461abd623255342c503b19f3c2d2e32377c62d4765dfac1a rep-gtk-0.90.5.tar.bz2
c4ce0d5c560f0846461abd623255342c503b19f3c2d2e32377c62d4765dfac1a rep-gtk-0.90.5.tar.bz2.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. You should remove %post and %postun targets entirely - they are useless.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
- The package MUST own all directories that it creates. nfortunately I think that there is some lack of agreement between librep and rep-gtk about directory structure.
This is the directory layout from librep (only interesting ones listed):
/usr/lib64/rep
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/data
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/i18n
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/io
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/io/db
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/lang
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/util
/usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/vm
And this the full directory and files layout from rep-gtk (except docs):
/usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/gui
/usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/gui/gtk-2
/usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/gui/gtk-2/gtk.so
You see - librep uses versioned directory structure while rep-gtk is not, thus the directory "/usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu" from rep-gtk package becomes unowned.
Btw I really don't see any reason on using versioned directory structure in librep. Technically it's ok (disregard rep-gtk for now) but it doesn't have any sense.
+ 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.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary runtime requirement is picked up automatically.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ 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.
So, please, fix the situation with directories and remove %post and %postun sections and I'll continue.
> 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. You > should remove %post and %postun targets entirely - they are useless. Removed. > - The package MUST own all directories that it creates. nfortunately I think > that there is some lack of agreement between librep and rep-gtk about directory > structure. You are right. We'll fix that in next version upstream. In the meanwhile, I fixed rep-gtk to own "/usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu" directory. Updated files: Spec URL: http://b.bbbs.net/sawfish/rep-gtk.spec SRPM URL: http://b.bbbs.net/sawfish/rep-gtk-0.90.5-3.fc15.src.rpm (In reply to comment #7) > > 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. You > > should remove %post and %postun targets entirely - they are useless. > > Removed. > > > - The package MUST own all directories that it creates. nfortunately I think > > that there is some lack of agreement between librep and rep-gtk about directory > > structure. > > You are right. We'll fix that in next version upstream. Ok. I just opened this ticket (just to be sure that this issue won't be forgotten) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/696293 > In the meanwhile, I fixed rep-gtk to own > "/usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu" directory. Updated files: > > Spec URL: http://b.bbbs.net/sawfish/rep-gtk.spec > SRPM URL: http://b.bbbs.net/sawfish/rep-gtk-0.90.5-3.fc15.src.rpm Ok, good. I can't see any other issues so this package is APPROVED. ps. please don't forget that there isn't librep for F-15 yet. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rep-gtk Short Description: GTK+ binding for librep Lisp environment Owners: kimheino Branches: f15 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). rep-gtk-0.90.5-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rep-gtk-0.90.5-3.fc15 rep-gtk-0.90.5-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository. rep-gtk-0.90.5-4.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rep-gtk-0.90.5-4.fc15 rep-gtk-0.90.5-4.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. |