Bug 456032 - DeviceKit - Device Enumeration Framework
Summary: DeviceKit - Device Enumeration Framework
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review   
(Show other bugs)
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
low
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Matthias Clasen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-07-21 02:13 UTC by David Zeuthen
Modified: 2013-03-06 03:56 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-07-24 04:22:42 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
mclasen: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 1 David Zeuthen 2008-07-21 02:14:36 UTC
See also bug 456033 and bug 456034.

Comment 2 Matthias Clasen 2008-07-21 03:47:45 UTC
Hmm, rpmlint is busted, so no rpmlint check for now...

Looking over the spec file informally, I notice 2 things:

1) you probably need to require udev for /etc/udev/rules.d ownership

2) the handling of %doc seems obscure. Whats the purpose of that ?

Comment 3 Matthias Clasen 2008-07-21 14:31:29 UTC
rpmlint output:

[mclasen@golem ~]$ rpmlint DeviceKit-002-0.git20080720.fc10.i386.rpm
DeviceKit-devel-002-0.git20080720.fc10.i386.rpm
DeviceKit-debuginfo-002-0.git20080720.fc10.i386.rpm 
DeviceKit.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.freedesktop.DeviceKit.conf
DeviceKit.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/98-devkit.rules
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

I'd double-check, but I believe it is common practise to treat neither dbus conf
files nor udev rules as conf files.




Comment 4 Matthias Clasen 2008-07-21 14:54:05 UTC
package name: ok
spec file name: ok
packaging guidelines:
 - you should probably straighten the %doc stuff 
 - Source: points to a nonexisting location, should just make it a filename
   and add a comment explaining that it is a git snapshot 
license: ok
license field: ok
license file: ok
spec language: ok
spec legibility: ok
upstream sources: ok, see above for Source: tag problem
ExcludeArch: n/a
BuildRequires: ok
locale handling: ok
ldconfig: ok
relocatable: n/a
directory ownership: 
  - need to Requires: udev for /etc/udev/rules.d
duplicate files: ok
permissions: ok
%clean: ok
macro use: consistent
content: permissible
large docs: n/a
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
file/directory ownership:
  - /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces should be owned by dbus
%install: ok
utf8 filenames: ok

Comment 5 David Zeuthen 2008-07-21 14:56:35 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'd double-check, but I believe it is common practise to treat neither dbus conf
> files nor udev rules as conf files.

Sure, of course these are not configuration files - rpmlint and/or the
guidelines are just busted.


Comment 6 David Zeuthen 2008-07-21 15:00:34 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> 1) you probably need to require udev for /etc/udev/rules.d ownership

Should do that anyway. Fixed locally.
 
> 2) the handling of %doc seems obscure. Whats the purpose of that ?

The fact that some files are not in the root directory of the tarball. It's not
particulary obscure. Suggestions on how to fix that welcome.

Comment 7 David Zeuthen 2008-07-21 15:03:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
>  - Source: points to a nonexisting location, should just make it a filename

Fixed.

>    and add a comment explaining that it is a git snapshot 

It's evident from the Release tag that it's a git snapshot.

>   - /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces should be owned by dbus

Yeah, that's a D-Bus problem.

Thanks for the review.

Comment 8 David Zeuthen 2008-07-21 17:16:44 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > 2) the handling of %doc seems obscure. Whats the purpose of that ?
> 
> The fact that some files are not in the root directory of the tarball. It's not
> particulary obscure. Suggestions on how to fix that welcome.

Just

 %doc README AUTHORS NEWS COPYING HACKING doc/TODO

seemed to do what I wanted.

I've uploaded new SPEC and SRPMS with all fixes at the same location - does this
look OK? Thanks.

Comment 9 Matthias Clasen 2008-07-21 18:25:15 UTC
Yes, looks good now. 
Even though the source url guidelines really want you put a comment there
explaining how to go from git url to tarball....

Comment 10 David Zeuthen 2008-07-21 20:29:16 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: DeviceKit
Short Description: Device Enumeration Framework
Owners: davidz
Branches:
InitialCC:
Cvsextras Commits: yes


Comment 11 Kevin Fenzi 2008-07-22 15:59:04 UTC
cvs done.


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