Bug 225855 - Merge Review: gphoto2
Summary: Merge Review: gphoto2
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Debarshi Ray
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-01-31 18:57 UTC by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2008-10-15 04:46 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-10-15 04:46:59 UTC
Type: ---
debarshir: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 18:57:38 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: gphoto2

Initial Owner: jnovy@redhat.com

Comment 1 Debarshi Ray 2008-06-21 20:16:56 UTC
MUST Items: 

OK - rpmlint is clean
OK - follows Naming Guidelines
OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec

xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
    + Is it necessary to define multilib_arches?
    + Since the package no longer carries the library, it should not be
mentioned in the description.
    + Source0 does not conform to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL packaging/rpm/package.spec.in
and packaging/rpm/gphoto2.spec seem to have a non-functional URL. Upstream
should be informed about it.
    + The --enable-docs and --enable-lockdev options could not be found in
configure and configure.ac and look like remnants from libgphoto2.
    + Is --with-doc-dir really needed? Shouldn't it by
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} instead of %{_docdir}/%{name}?
    + To preserve timestamps you could consider using:
      make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
    + Why not include ChangeLog and TODO in %doc?
    + Why not include contrib/simple-mtpupload in %doc?

OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines

xx - License field meets actual license
    + Should be GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2. See
packaging/rpm/package.spec.in and packaging/rpm/gphoto2.spec wrongly mention
LGPL. Upstream should be informed about it.

OK - upstream license file included in %doc
OK - spec file uses American English
OK - spec file is legible
OK - sources match upstream sources
OK - package builds successfully

OK - ExcludeArch for s390 and s390x
    + s390 and s390x are not Fedora supported architectures, yet. Out of
curiosity, what is the reason for this?

xx - redundant and extra build dependencies listed
    + libusb-devel and libexif-devel are brought in by libgphoto2-devel,
lockdev-devel looks like an old requirement from libgphoto2, while pkgconfig is
brought in by all the -devel packages providing *.pc files.

xx - locales not handled properly
    + BuildRequires: gettext should be added. See

OK - no shared libraries
OK - package is not relocatable
OK - file and directory ownership
OK - no duplicates in %file

OK - file permissions set properly
    + The preferred attribute definition is: %defattr(-,root,root,-)

OK - %clean present

xx - macros not used consistently
    + Both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT notations used.
    + No need to enclose them within double quotes. According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros only one style should
be used.

OK - contains code and permissable content
OK - -doc is not needed
OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime
OK - no header files
OK - no static libraries
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no library files
OK - -devel is not needed
OK - no libtool archives
OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed
OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages
OK - buildroot correctly prepped
OK - all file names valid UTF-8


OK - upstream provides license text
xx - no translations for description and summary
OK - package builds in mock successfully

OK - package builds on all supported architectures
    + s390 and s390x are excluded, which are not Fedora architectures.

OK - package functions as expected
OK - scriptlets are sane
OK - subpackages are not needed
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no file dependencies

Comment 2 Debarshi Ray 2008-06-22 12:03:29 UTC
If the package is creating the %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name} directory, it
should either be removed or owned by the package because a package must own all
directories that it creates.

And I am only curious to know why this fails to build on s390 and s390x, and not
why they are not Fedora-supported architectures. :-)

Comment 3 Debarshi Ray 2008-07-11 20:27:16 UTC

Comment 4 Debarshi Ray 2008-07-23 04:54:07 UTC
This review seems to be stalled.

Jindrich, according to
you need to respond within a week.

Comment 5 Jindrich Novy 2008-08-02 07:35:57 UTC
Sorry, I was in Africa for 3 weeks with no  internet access.

I applied all your points except:
+ Why not include contrib/simple-mtpupload in %doc?
It contains perl script that could pull in a perl dependency, which shouldn't be
otherwise needed. The questin is whether /usr/share/doc is a good place for
scripts anyway.

IIRC the s390(x) excluding is because it simply doesn't have USB support.

Thanks for review!

Comment 6 manuel wolfshant 2008-08-02 10:18:12 UTC
Just "chmod -x simple-mtpupload " and rpm will no longer pull perl as dependency

Comment 7 Debarshi Ray 2008-08-07 04:39:41 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)

+ What is the need for two Source0 lines? The first one should be simply removed.

+ Unnecessary 'BuildRequires: pkgconfig' still remains.

+ You could look at Manuel's comment on simple-mtpupload, but its finally upto you.

Comment 8 Debarshi Ray 2008-08-07 04:44:44 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)

Fedora tends to prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo), so it would be nice if you could use it instead of %defattr(-,root,root).

But this is not a blocker for the review.

Comment 9 Jindrich Novy 2008-08-07 04:55:14 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> Fedora tends to prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)


(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> + What is the need for two Source0 lines? The first one should be simply
> removed.

It was a typo, the older one should just have to go away.

> + Unnecessary 'BuildRequires: pkgconfig' still remains.


> + You could look at Manuel's comment on simple-mtpupload, but its finally upto
> you.

Well, putting executable stuff into /usr/share/doc is not a good idea, we should either package it to be actually executable in /usr/bin or not to package it at all. Just removing the executable attribute to fool RPM is not a solution IMO.

Thanks for the review :)

Comment 10 Debarshi Ray 2008-08-09 12:58:02 UTC
(In reply to comment #9)

Looks like a rpmlint warning has crept in during the review:
    + [rishi@ginger x86_64]$ rpmlint gphoto2-2.4.2-3.fc10.x86_64.rpm
      gphoto2.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gphoto2-2.4.2/ChangeLog
      [rishi@ginger x86_64]$ 

Could be fixed as shown in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#file-not-utf8

Otherwise it looks fine.

| This package is APPROVED by me. |

Comment 11 Debarshi Ray 2008-08-09 13:08:50 UTC
Also replace %{buildroot} with %%{buildroot} in the %changelog stanza to avoid rpmlint warnings on the SRPM.

Comment 12 Debarshi Ray 2008-10-14 21:28:46 UTC

Is there anything which is stopping us from closing this review?

Comment 13 Jindrich Novy 2008-10-15 04:46:59 UTC
Nope, everything seems to be fixed now. Thanks.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.