Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/ajackson/pixman/pixman.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/ajackson/pixman/pixman-0.9.0-0.20070518.src.rpm Description: pixman is the common rendering code from cairo and the X server, but now it's a real shared library. Note: we don't actually need this in the OS yet, right now this is just to have a place to point people who are looking for builds. X server in git requires this, so. Built RPMs also available from http://people.redhat.com/ajackson/pixman/
mock build is fine for i386 but ----------------------------------------------------- rpmlint complains on SRPM as => I: pixman checking W: pixman mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 3) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. rpmlint output on pixman RPM => W: pixman no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. E: pixman library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libpixman.so.0.0.0 This package contains a library and provides no %post scriptlet containing a call to ldconfig. E: pixman library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libpixman.so.0.0.0 This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a call to ldconfig. rpmlint outout on -devel rpm => W: pixman-devel summary-not-capitalized pixman development package Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also it will be good to add disttag though its not mandatory
(In reply to comment #1) > mock build is fine for i386 but > ----------------------------------------------------- > rpmlint complains on SRPM as => > I: pixman checking > W: pixman mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 3) > The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a > cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. Fixed. > rpmlint output on pixman RPM => > W: pixman no-documentation > The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). > You have to include documentation files. ... if they exist, yes. But there's no upstream documentation to include. The package guidelines do not say you must have docs, only that relevant docs must be included if they exist: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b > E: pixman library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libpixman.so.0.0.0 > This package contains a library and provides no %post scriptlet containing > a call to ldconfig. > > E: pixman library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libpixman.so.0.0.0 > This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing > a call to ldconfig. > > rpmlint outout on -devel rpm => > W: pixman-devel summary-not-capitalized pixman development package > Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. All fixed. I usually leave disttag off until initial import, if for no other reason than cvs-import.sh would historically not expand disttag properly on initial import, so I had to edit the spec after import anyway. Will certainly use once it's in CVS though. New spec and srpm, with all above addressed plus updated snapshot: http://people.redhat.com/ajackson/pixman/pixman.spec http://people.redhat.com/ajackson/pixman/pixman-0.9.0-20070524.src.rpm
W: pixman incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.0-0.20070518 0.9.0-0.20070524 The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package.
ping?
ping? I think we can consider this review as DEAD review now.
Updated with current git build: http://people.redhat.com/ajackson/pixman/pixman.spec http://people.redhat.com/ajackson/pixman/pixman-0.9.0-20070724.src.rpm
quick view over the package: 1) $RPM_OPT_FLAGS not used 2) no disttag 3) download link for srpm broken
(In reply to comment #9) > quick view over the package: > 1) $RPM_OPT_FLAGS not used Done for me by %configure. > 2) no disttag Eh, package isn't actually useful for anything pre-F8, but sure, why not. > 3) download link for srpm broken Erk. Fixed: http://people.redhat.com/ajackson/pixman/pixman.spec http://people.redhat.com/ajackson/pixman/pixman-0.9.0-0.20070724.fc8.src.rpm
Package Review: ================================================== ---------------------------------- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. ---------------------------------- OK, output: W: pixman no-documentation W: pixman-devel no-documentation upstream only has empty files. ---------------------------------- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements. ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. ---------------------------------- OK (MIT) Note: Please ask upstream to fix the empty COPYING file ---------------------------------- 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. ---------------------------------- File exits but empty so OK (not packaged) ---------------------------------- 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. ---------------------------------- N/A (git snapshot) ---------------------------------- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. ---------------------------------- OK (Tested on F7 x86_64) ---------------------------------- 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. ---------------------------------- N/A ---------------------------------- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- 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. ---------------------------------- OK (not relocateable) ---------------------------------- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. ---------------------------------- 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, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- 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. ---------------------------------- N/A ---------------------------------- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. ---------------------------------- 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. ---------------------------------- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. ---------------------------------- OK (builds fine on F7 x86_64) ---------------------------------- SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. ---------------------------------- OK ---------------------------------- ================================================== Summary: Package looks ok, some issues have to be fixed upstream (empty doc files) ================================================== ############ => APPROVED! ############
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pixman Short Description: Pixel manipulation library for cairo and X Owners: xgl-maint Branches: InitialCC:
added
Imported but not built, because: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75713 "BuildError: package pixman not in list for tag dist-f8"
any reason why am i removed from fedora-review?
Adel Gadllah, If you see I am waiting for this review since last 2 months and even after pinging you 2 times you replied yesterday and got it approved quickly. Any reason must have been specified before removing current reviewer.
"BuildError: package pixman not in list for tag dist-f8" This has since been fixed.
warren, Do we have any policies on hijacking other's reviews? If yes then I will be happy to see that. May be I can also use that in future for taking over other's review :)
(In reply to comment #16) > Adel Gadllah, > If you see I am waiting for this review since last 2 months and even after > pinging you 2 times you replied yesterday and got it approved quickly. Any > reason must have been specified before removing current reviewer. Sorry, ajax asked yesterday in #fedora-devel that he want this reviewed quickly to get it into rawhide before the test1 freeze (which was yesterday too). So don't did this to hijack your review or something like this. But you are correct I should have explained the reason why I am doing this.
Ajax, Any reason why you not responded to my pings?
Because I was busy. And this package wasn't critical for anything I needed done at the time.
thanks for giving me your time to reply my question.