Fedora Merge Review: dbus http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/dbus/ Initial Owner: johnp
Ok, taking this one. rpmlint output: [mclasen@localhost devel]$ rpmlint i386/dbus-1.1.2-8.fc8.i386.rpm dbus.i386: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/messagebus Should probably be fixed to follow the packaging guidelines. dbus.i386: E: non-standard-gid /lib/dbus-1/dbus-daemon-launch-helper dbus dbus.i386: E: setuid-binary /lib/dbus-1/dbus-daemon-launch-helper root 04750 dbus.i386: E: non-standard-executable-perm /lib/dbus-1/dbus-daemon-launch-helper 04750 dbus.i386: E: non-standard-executable-perm /lib/dbus-1/dbus-daemon-launch-helper 04750 This has all been carefully reviewed when dbus system bus activation was implemented, so is ok. dbus.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/dbus-1.1.2/COPYING dbus.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/dbus-1.1.2/ChangeLog dbus.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/dbus-1.1.2/NEWS Should be fixed. dbus.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/dbus-1/session.conf dbus.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/dbus-1/system.conf I think these should probably be %config(noreplace) dbus.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/messagebus Shouldn't be %config dbus.i386: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/messagebus dbus.i386: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/messagebus This is of course not a bug, but necessary. dbus.i386: W: incoherent-init-script-name messagebus Not sure what this is about, spurious warning. [mclasen@localhost devel]$ rpmlint i386/dbus-x11-1.1.2-8.fc8.i386.rpm dbus-x11.i386: E: explicit-lib-dependency libX11 [mclasen@localhost devel]$ rpmlint i386/dbus-libs-1.1.2-8.fc8.i386.rpm dbus-libs.i386: W: no-documentation dbus-libs.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided dbus Should be fine in this case, since dbus-libs requires dbus, ie it does provide dbus via a Requires. [mclasen@localhost devel]$ rpmlint i386/dbus-devel-1.1.2-8.fc8.i386.rpm dbus-devel.i386: W: no-documentation dbus-devel.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib These are ignorable, rpmlint is confused about /lib vs /usr/lib Package name: ok Spec name: ok Packaging guidelines: - uses of BuildPreReq and PreReq should be removed - the conflict with cups is somewhat curious and deserves a little comment - the -devel subpackage should probably requires the -libs package, not the main package - should not mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} - Should the service be stopped in %preun before deleting it ? The wiki seems to imply that - %{_datadir}/man should perhaps be %{_mandir} - -devel should probably requires devhelp for /usr/share/devhelp/books directory ownership license: ok license field: ok license file: ok spec language: ok spec legibility: ok upstream sources: ok buildable: ok excludearch: n/a build requires: ok locale handling: n/a shared library symlinks: ok relocatable: n/a directory ownership: see above %file list: ok file permissions: see above %clean: ok consistent macro use: see above large docs: are included in -devel, ok %doc content: ok headers: ok static libs: n/a pc files: ok shared libs: ok devel deps: ok libtool archives: ok gui apps: n/a directory ownership: see above %install: ok utf8 filenames: ok
> dbus.i386: W: incoherent-init-script-name messagebus > > Not sure what this is about, spurious warning. messagebus is a different name than the package I am guessing. I can fix the issues tomorrow.
> messagebus is a different name than the package I am guessing. I can fix the > issues tomorrow. Or maybe != daemon name. Who knows. The warning is unclear, and I am not aware of any rules mandating either pairs to be equal, so just ignore this one.
$ rpmlint -I incoherent-init-script-name incoherent-init-script-name : The init script name should be the same as the package name in lower case, or one with 'd' appended if it invokes a process by that name. Note: this is just what rpmlint thinks, it is not mandated by current packaging guidelines. I think changing the name in this case would not bring enough benefits to outweigh the pain.
also messagebus is the upstream name people expect
Fixed most of the items in the devel branch (In reply to comment #1) > [mclasen@localhost devel]$ rpmlint i386/dbus-1.1.2-8.fc8.i386.rpm > dbus.i386: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/messagebus > > Should probably be fixed to follow the packaging guidelines. removed the %config macro > dbus.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/dbus-1.1.2/COPYING > dbus.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/dbus-1.1.2/ChangeLog > dbus.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/dbus-1.1.2/NEWS > > Should be fixed. did a chmod in prep because the upstream tarball has these bits set though curiously upstream git does not. May be fixed in next upstream release or something is wrong during tarball packaging. > dbus.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/dbus-1/session.conf > dbus.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/dbus-1/system.conf > > I think these should probably be %config(noreplace) Done > dbus.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/messagebus > > Shouldn't be %config fixed > dbus.i386: W: incoherent-init-script-name messagebus > > Not sure what this is about, spurious warning. > Sticking with the upstream default > > [mclasen@localhost devel]$ rpmlint i386/dbus-x11-1.1.2-8.fc8.i386.rpm > dbus-x11.i386: E: explicit-lib-dependency libX11 > Remove libX11 requires. rpm -qp dbus-x11-1.1.2-9.fc9.i386.rpm --requires shows libX11 was properly picked up > Packaging guidelines: > - uses of BuildPreReq and PreReq should be removed Moved them to BuildRequires and Requires(pre) respectively > - the conflict with cups is somewhat curious and deserves a little comment Comment added from Tim Waugh's changelog > - the -devel subpackage should probably requires the -libs package, not > the main package This is a multilib thing I am told but the main package does require the -libs package as it contains the actual versioned libraries > - should not mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} switched to using %{buildroot} exclusively > - Should the service be stopped in %preun before deleting it ? The wiki > seems to imply that Done > - %{_datadir}/man should perhaps be %{_mandir} Done > - -devel should probably requires devhelp for /usr/share/devhelp/books > directory ownership I really don't like this since it would require KDE to have a GTK+ requirement to build on Fedora. As much as I have an I don't care attitude I know there are plenty who do care. Suggestions welcome. We could make a -devhelp sub package but I think that is just a waste. > directory ownership: see above Again - see above > file permissions: see above Fixed > consistent macro use: see above Fixed
Suggestions welcome. We could make a -devhelp sub package but I think that is just a waste. I'd call it -docs, but yeah, thats the suggestion I'd have. Everything else is fine now.
I think it is better to call is -doc to be consistent with all the other packages and the suggestion in the guidelines.
sure, -doc works too
Until /usr/share/devhelp/books is owned by some other package, I guess putting the books in -doc is the best we can do. I split out the vala package the same way when it started using devhelp for documentation.
yep, already done when I pushed the latest D-Bus to rawhide
Approved.