Bug 464441 - Review Request: HamFax - An application for sending and receiving facsimiles in amateur radio.
Summary: Review Request: HamFax - An application for sending and receiving facsimiles ...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Gwyn Ciesla
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2008-09-29 03:13 UTC by Randy Berry
Modified: 2008-10-15 23:21 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-10-15 23:21:41 UTC
Type: ---
gwync: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Randy Berry 2008-09-29 03:13:45 UTC
Spec URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SPECS/HamFax.spec
SRPM URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SRPMS/HamFax-0.6.4-1.fc9.src.rpm
Description: HamFax is an application for sending and receiving facsimiles in
amateur radio and for receiving public facsimile broadcasts like
weather maps. Supported interfaces are sound cards and the SCS-PTCII
from Special Communication Systems. 

Sponsor Needed = yes
rpmlint        = pass
rpmbuild       = pass
mock build     = pass

Comment 1 Gwyn Ciesla 2008-10-13 16:26:14 UTC
Adding FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker, since you need a sponsor. 

I'll start a full review soon.  In the mean time, please do some practice reviews of other packages needing review, and post links here.

Comment 2 Randy Berry 2008-10-14 01:52:53 UTC
Practice review 1: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445970

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2008-10-14 14:16:31 UTC
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.


- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .


- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format 
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines .


- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .


- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .


- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.

So, other than the license tag and the BR issue, looks pretty good.

I'd like to see at least one more practice review, and I'll take a look at the one you linked to.

FIX.  License tag should be GPLv2+

- 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.


- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.


- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/).


- 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.


- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.


- 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 needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64


- 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.

NEEDINFO I have questions.  Does the build process really use both versions of qt?  Better to BR the version it actually uses, and modify the spec or use ifdef if the version it uses varies between rawide, F-9, F-8.

- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.


- 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. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is:

%post -p /sbin/ldconfig

%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig


- 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.


- 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. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.


- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.


- 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.


- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).


- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines .


- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines .


- MUST: Large documentation files should 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)


- 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.


- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.


- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.


- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).


- 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.


- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}


- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec.


- 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. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of the Packaging Guidelines . 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.


- 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.


- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.


- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2008-10-14 14:51:51 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Practice review 1: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445970

See my comments there.

It's helpful, especially when you're first learning to review, to paste the MUST section of the review guidlines and go though point by point, like I bit.  There may be things you find that aren't strictly under any particular MUST, but it's a great place to start.

One or two more reviews, a license tag fix, and the BR question and we're set.

Comment 5 Randy Berry 2008-10-14 18:11:04 UTC
Spec URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SPECS/HamFax.spec
SRPM URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SRPMS/HamFax-0.6.4-2.fc9.src.rpm

License tag fixed now listed as GPLv2+.

BR requires both qt-devel and qt3-devel I removed qt4-devel from the BR list. I was able to successfully mock build this package in both f9 and rawhide (i386), f8 does fail to build.

Currently searching for another package to review that has not already been reviewed or assigned.

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2008-10-14 18:56:40 UTC
Ok, the package looks good.  I can approve once I'm comfortable sponsoring, and the practice review you've done is moving me in that direction.

Comment 7 Randy Berry 2008-10-15 00:19:46 UTC
Second practice review:
Bug URL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459924

Comment 8 Randy Berry 2008-10-15 06:30:31 UTC
Yet another practice review.

Bug URL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458402

Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2008-10-15 14:13:18 UTC
Given the reviews you've completed, and our email exchange, I'm comfortable that you've got a good and improving grasp of the Packaging Guidelines and review process.  I've sponsored your FAS account, 


your package, and you're ready to request cvs branching, import, and build.  I'd recommend devel (required, and no need to request) and F-9 branches.

You can also take ownership of the reviews you did, verify that the changes get made, and approve them when ready.

Feel free to shoot questions my way.

Comment 10 Randy Berry 2008-10-15 15:42:57 UTC
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: HamFax
Short Description: An application for sending and receiving facsimiles in amateur radio.
Owners: dp67
Branches: F-9, F-10
InitialCC: dp67

Comment 11 Robert 'Bob' Jensen 2008-10-15 16:00:06 UTC
Way To Go Randy.

Thanks a lot Jon for sponsoring Randy, he has been a valuable member of our Amateur Radio SIG already, packaging will make him even more so.

Good work guys.

Comment 12 Gwyn Ciesla 2008-10-15 16:13:25 UTC
NP, the more the merrier. :)

Comment 13 Kevin Fenzi 2008-10-15 21:56:15 UTC
cvs done.

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