Spec URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gphotoframe/gphotoframe.spec SRPM URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gphotoframe/gphotoframe-1.0-1.fc.src.rpm Description: Gnome Photo Frame is a photo frame gadget for the GNOME Desktop. koji scratch build For rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2347215 For F-13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2347216 For F-12: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2347218
Taking.
[XX] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. % lintmock fedora-13-x86_64-bb gphotoframe.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gphotoframe.schemas gphotoframe.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gphotoframe gphotoframe.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre rm gphotoframe.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm gphotoframe.src: W: strange-permission gphotoframe-1.0.tar.gz 0640L gphotoframe.src: W: strange-permission gphotoframe.spec 0640L gphotoframe.src:112: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver/gphotoframe-screensaver gphotoframe.src: W: no-buildroot-tag gphotoframe.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://gphotoframe.googlecode.com/files/gphotoframe-1.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found gphotoframe-gss.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) screensaver -> screen saver, screen-saver, screens aver gphotoframe-gss.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US screensaver -> screen saver, screen-saver, screens aver gphotoframe-gss.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings. I'm guessing that the dangerous-commands are fine since they're macros and presumably fine. Perms are my thing. Seems to be an rpath sneaking around in gpf-ss. spectool -g gets the tarball, so that's fine as well. So, just that rpath issue. [OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [XX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Looking at COPYING, it seems there is GPLv2+, MIT, and BSD code included as well. Nothing bad, just might need to be listed. [OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. The COPYING says GPLv3+, but the sources don't have headers themselves. [OK] 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. [OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [OK] MUST: The package <b>MUST</b> successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [OK] 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 MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [OK] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the <code>%find_lang</code> macro. Using <code>%{_datadir}/locale/*</code> is strictly forbidden. [OK] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in <code>%post</code> and <code>%postun</code>. [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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [OK] 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. [OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every <code>%files</code> section must include a <code>%defattr(...)</code> line. [OK] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains <code>rm -rf %{buildroot}</code> (<a href="/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags" title="Packaging/Guidelines" class="mw-redirect">or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT</a>). [OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] MUST: Large documentation files must 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). [OK] 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. [OK] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [OK] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [OK] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [OK] 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. [OK] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: <code>Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} </code> [OK] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [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. 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. [OK] 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 <code>filesystem</code> or <code>man</code> 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. [OK] MUST: At the beginning of <code>%install</code>, each package MUST run <code>rm -rf %{buildroot}</code> (<a href="/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags" title="Packaging/Guidelines" class="mw-redirect">or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT</a>). [OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [OK] 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. [--] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [OK] 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. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Can test later, but if you've given it a good shakedown, that's fine by me. [OK] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [OK] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [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. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [OK] 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. Other: - For the EPEL stuff at the top, the sitearch macro can be removed since this is noarch. - How is python3 parallel install?
Thank you for initial comments. (In reply to comment #2) > [XX] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in > the review. > > I'm guessing that the dangerous-commands are fine since they're macros and > presumably fine. Perms are my thing. Seems to be an rpath sneaking around in > gpf-ss. spectool -g gets the tarball, so that's fine as well. > > So, just that rpath issue. - Well, what do you mean "rpath" here? This is noarch and rpath should not be related. > [OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the > format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. > [XX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > > Looking at COPYING, it seems there is GPLv2+, MIT, and BSD code included as > well. Nothing bad, just might need to be listed. - Will change the license tag to "GPLv3+ and GPLv2+" (and adding some comments that some png files are under GPLv2+. I usually don't explicit write about MIT or BSD or so if GPL codes are also included). > Other: > > - For the EPEL stuff at the top, the sitearch macro can be removed since this > is noarch. - Will remove %python_sitearch > - How is python3 parallel install? - I guess the upstream will say something when python3 is supported. And I have not tried python3... so for now I want to make this package just support python2.
(In reply to comment #3) > Thank you for initial comments. > > (In reply to comment #2) > > So, just that rpath issue. > > - Well, what do you mean "rpath" here? This is noarch and rpath > should not be related. Oops, yeah. I shouldn't do these so late at night I guess :P . Taking a peek in the mock chroot, I don't see the "hardcoded" library path in that file since it's just a shellscript that does "exec gphotoframe". Not sure what that is. > > [OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the > > format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. > > [XX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > > license. > > > > Looking at COPYING, it seems there is GPLv2+, MIT, and BSD code included as > > well. Nothing bad, just might need to be listed. > > - Will change the license tag to "GPLv3+ and GPLv2+" (and adding some > comments that some png files are under GPLv2+. I usually don't > explicit write about MIT or BSD or so if GPL codes are also included). OK. The new rules for licensing are also good since gss depends on the base package, so it's good there as well (need to update my checklist I guess). > > Other: > > - How is python3 parallel install? > > - I guess the upstream will say something when python3 is supported. > And I have not tried python3... so for now I want to make this package > just support python2. OK. Just need a new spec for the license tag update and it's good.
http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gphotoframe/gphotoframe.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gphotoframe/gphotoframe-1.0-2.fc.src.rpm * Sun Jul 25 2010 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka.u-tokyo.ac.jp> - 1.0-2 - Fix license tag (Actually changed to "GPLv3 and GPLv2+") Well, about this comment in spec file: ------------------------------------- # lib/ is hardcoded in setup.py ------------------------------------- This means that setup.py in gphotoframe tries to install "gphotoframe-screensaver" into <root>/<prefix>/"lib"/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver, here "lib" is hardcoded. From setup.py: -------------------------------------------------------- 29 ('lib/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver', --------------------------------------------------------
Ah, alright. Since it's dealt with in the spec file to be libexec (as other gss packages also seem to use), I'll approve. APPROVED.
Thank you! Now I reviewed your review request, actually another interesting file manager.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gphotoframe Short Description: Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop Owners: mtasaka Branches: F-12 F-13 InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
Rebuilt for dist-f14, dist-f13-updates-candidate, dist-f12-updates-candidate and dist-f14-py27-rebuild and submitted push requests for F-13/12, closing. Thank you for review and CVS procedure.