Bug 845308

Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



==== C/C++ ====
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
     present.


==== Generic ====
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files devel section. This is OK if
     packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with
     incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* zlib/libpng"
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Package creates /usr/include/GL, but doesn't own it.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
     Note: There is no justification for the solib patch.  I would probably
     just write a comment explaining the purpose of the patch
[x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues:
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files devel section. This is OK if
     packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
See: None
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with
     incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* zlib/libpng"
     IANAL, but I suspect "zlib and LGPLv2+" is right for this.  I'm not sure
     what to do about the wrong FSF address.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
[!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Package creates /usr/include/GL, but doesn't own it, and none of its
     requires own it.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function
[!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
     Note: There is no justification for the solib patch.  I would probably
     just write a comment explaining the purpose of the patch
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Fedora-specific_.28or_rejected_upstream.29_patches

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: glui-2.36-1.fc17.src.rpm
          glui-devel-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
          glui-debuginfo-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
          glui-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
glui.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkboxes -> check boxes, check-boxes, checkbooks
glui-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkboxes -> check boxes, check-boxes, checkbooks
glui-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/glui-2.36/src/glui_tree.cpp
glui.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkboxes -> check boxes, check-boxes, checkbooks
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint glui-debuginfo
glui-debuginfo.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
glui-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/glui-2.36/src/glui_tree.cpp
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires
--------
glui-devel-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    
    glui = 2.36-1.fc17

glui-debuginfo-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    

glui-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    
    /sbin/ldconfig  
    libc.so.6()(64bit)  
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)  
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)  
    libm.so.6()(64bit)  
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)  
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)  
    rtld(GNU_HASH)  

Provides
--------
glui-devel-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
    
    glui-devel = 2.36-1.fc17
    glui-devel(x86-64) = 2.36-1.fc17

glui-debuginfo-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
    
    glui-debuginfo = 2.36-1.fc17
    glui-debuginfo(x86-64) = 2.36-1.fc17

glui-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
    
    glui = 2.36-1.fc17
    glui(x86-64) = 2.36-1.fc17
    libglui.so.0()(64bit)  

MD5-sum check
-------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/glui/glui-2.36.tgz :
  MD5SUM this package     : 9e8d506af9a9428dac09e8cd7bda7c1e
  MD5SUM upstream package : 9e8d506af9a9428dac09e8cd7bda7c1e


Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09

The first three issues can be ignored if you're planning to package this for EPEL-5.  If not, they should probably be fixed.

The fourth issue is just a license tag that needs to be fixed, the fifth a directory that should be owned by the -devel package (though, ironically, mesa-libGL-devel doesn't own it and should), and the sixth issue is just a request for a comment on the patch.

All in all, pretty simple stuff.  I'm going to mark this approved, so, after the above issues are fixed, go ahead and do the CVS request.

Excellent, I have, thanks very much!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: glui
Short Description: A GLUT-Based User Interface Library
Owners: limb
Branches:
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Imported and built in rawhide.