Fedora Merge Review: gperf http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/gperf/ Initial Owner: laroche
Current package owner is rrakus, no laroche. Okay, so let's go for now: [ DONE ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-10-x86_64/result/gperf-* gperf.src:9: E: prereq-use /sbin/install-info 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. $ -> See below, mentioned there and how to fix. [ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...] [ ?? ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [FAILED] 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 -> Add COPYING to %doc [ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [ OK ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. -> cc20e58975a38075440423c8fb85fd00 gperf-3.0.3.tar.gz -> cc20e58975a38075440423c8fb85fd00 gperf-3.0.3.tar.gz.1 -> 3c535d2727eb0dca10ca87cefa03720a8280c7a2 gperf-3.0.3.tar.gz -> 3c535d2727eb0dca10ca87cefa03720a8280c7a2 gperf-3.0.3.tar.gz.1 [ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line [ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden [ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] [ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [11] [ OK ] 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. [ OK ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [ OK ] 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. -> We're optional suggesting %defattr(-,root,root,-) rather current [ OK ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [ ?? ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). -> gperf/doc/* is currently nearly unused, let's talk about why and so [ ?? ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. -> First clarify point above... [ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [ N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [ N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [ N/A ] 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [ OK ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [ OK ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ OK ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. - Change BuildRoot e.g. to: BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Use _smpflags for make or explain, why/that it can't used, e.g. make %{?_smp_mflags} - Kill "Prereq: /sbin/install-info" line, replace by Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info - Shouldn't it be the following rather the current (add || :)? %preun if [ $1 = 0 ]; then /sbin/install-info --delete %{_infodir}/gperf.info.gz %{_infodir}/dir || : fi exit 0 - Please let us talk about why nearly nothing of gperf/doc/* currently ends up in the package, there's *.pdf, *.ps, *.html documentation. Reasons?
>[FAILED] 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 > -> Add COPYING to %doc Fixed. >- Change BuildRoot e.g. to: > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. >- Use _smpflags for make or explain, why/that it can't used, e.g. > make %{?_smp_mflags} Fixed. >- Kill "Prereq: /sbin/install-info" line, replace by > Requires(post): /sbin/install-info > Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info Fixed. >- Shouldn't it be the following rather the current (add || :)? > %preun > if [ $1 = 0 ]; then > /sbin/install-info --delete %{_infodir}/gperf.info.gz %{_infodir}/dir || : > fi > exit 0 Is it necessary? Fixed. >- Please let us talk about why nearly nothing of gperf/doc/* currently ends up > in the package, there's *.pdf, *.ps, *.html documentation. Reasons? Added *.{html,ps,pdf} fixed in gperf-3.0.3-5.fc11
Roman, thank you for taking action. I think, I've forgotten the suggestion of preserving timestamps before and to avoid the usage of %makeinstall, thus we recommend packagers to use instead: make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install INSTALL='install -p' Regarding the documentation I'm not really happy. We've currently much more documentation rather rest of gperf inside of the package. We've multiple options: Creating -docs subpackage and moving everything out there OR just kill the huge *.ps from %doc (*.ps vs. *.pdf seems to be a bit redundant and *.pdf is usually better searchable) - last of it was accepted and got told to be useful in Freenode #fedora-devel, #fedora-de by several packagers. Choose what you like as packager and let me know. I can deal with both or even a better option - afterwards we should be (hopefully) fine with review.
Created attachment 330088 [details] gperf specfile >Roman, thank you for taking action. I think, I've forgotten the suggestion >of preserving timestamps before and to avoid the usage of %makeinstall, thus >we recommend packagers to use instead: > > make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install INSTALL='install -p' > Ok. I changed it to make install. But why to use install -p? >Regarding the documentation I'm not really happy. We've currently much more >documentation rather rest of gperf inside of the package. > >We've multiple options: Creating -docs subpackage and moving everything out >there OR just kill the huge *.ps from %doc (*.ps vs. *.pdf seems to be a bit >redundant and *.pdf is usually better searchable) - last of it was accepted >and got told to be useful in Freenode #fedora-devel, #fedora-de by several >packagers. > >Choose what you like as packager and let me know. I can deal with both or >even a better option - afterwards we should be (hopefully) fine with review. I removed *.ps files. I am including specfile for review. Maybe there is something more and I'd like to prevent many useless builds.
A 'install -p' makes install preserving the original timestamps of the files it is installing (e.g. for stuff like man pages or non-generated files during build). That's optional and nice to see for people (whether something changed or not), but just suggested. Spec file from comment #4 looks fine to me now, thus: APPROVED. Thank you, Roman for solving the issues fast. Please close this bug report, once you've applied the changes from comment #4 into CVS.
Hmm, I think, noone looks at timestamps, but ok.