Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/ClanLib1.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/ClanLib1-1.0.0-4.fc11.src.rpm Description: ClanLib is a cross platform C++ game library. This is a rename review from ClanLib to ClanLib1, so that the ClanLib package name can be used for the new 2.x series, without dropping ClanLib-1.x from the distro as most ClanLib packages still need 1.x to build / run.
ClanLib1 review: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing. n/a:not applicable. MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. ClanLib1.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided ClanLib ClanLib1.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libclanGL.so.1.0.0 exit ClanLib1-devel.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided ClanLib-devel ClanLib1-devel.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ClanLib1-devel-1.0.0/html/Tutorial/TicTacToe/tictactoe.zip 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. 1st warning is OK. 2nd warning is an upstream bug, not a packaging bug, so OK. 3rd warning is OK, just like 1st is. 4th warning is bogus, this is a zip file, not a text file. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] 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. [+] 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. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 281e64a463155474d0f1270686286811 [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported 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. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [n/a] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [+] 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. [n/a] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [+] 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. [+] 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 permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [n/a] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [n/a] 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. [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. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [n/a] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [n/a] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [?] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [n/a] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [n/a] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] 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. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [n/a] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [+] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. I still need to check the upgrade path. At least, I need to understand why 'yum localinstall ClanLib1' doesn't try to remove the older ClanLib package. The Obsoletes: look fine to me though. Nitpick, you might want to change the suffix for Source1 and Patch[01] from ClanLib to ClanLib1 to avoid conflict with the files included in the current current ClanLib package. Also, patches aren't referencing upstream bugs, as required for some time by the guidelines. Don't know if it's a must or a should, I need to check that too.
> I still need to check the upgrade path. At least, I need to understand why 'yum > localinstall ClanLib1' doesn't try to remove the older ClanLib package. The > Obsoletes: look fine to me though. > Works fine when the package is in a local repo. > Nitpick, you might want to change the suffix for Source1 and Patch[01] from > ClanLib to ClanLib1 to avoid conflict with the files included in the current > current ClanLib package. Also, patches aren't referencing upstream bugs, as > required for some time by the guidelines. Don't know if it's a must or a > should, I need to check that too. This is a "should' APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ClanLib1 Short Description: Cross platform C++ game library Owners: jwrdegoede Branches: F-12 InitialCC:
cvs done.
Built for devel, Xavier let me know if you also want ClanLib-2.1 in F-12, then I'll build both ClanLib1 and an updated ClanLib (to 2.1) there and push them in one go to updates.
Yes, please build it for F-12 too. As F-12 is just about to be released and thus as a full life span to live, I think it would be handy to have both ClanLib 1 and ClanLib 2 available. It might even worth it to have both in F-11 too, but I see the F11 ClanLib is still 0.8, so it might be a bit more troublesome.
(In reply to comment #6) > Yes, please build it for F-12 too. As F-12 is just about to be released and > thus as a full life span to live, I think it would be handy to have both > ClanLib 1 and ClanLib 2 available. Ok will do, I will put them in updates-testing for now, let me know when you need them to go to stable. > It might even worth it to have both in F-11 > too, but I see the F11 ClanLib is still 0.8, so it might be a bit more > troublesome. Erm, 0.8 has a different soname, so for F-11 I would like to avoid this if possbile.