Bug 639350 - Review Request: gio-sharp - C# bindings for gio
Summary: Review Request: gio-sharp - C# bindings for gio
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: David Nalley
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 639351
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2010-10-01 14:11 UTC by Nathaniel McCallum
Modified: 2014-10-08 10:10 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version: clutter-sharp-0-0.8.20090828.fc14
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-10-18 05:35:37 UTC
Type: ---
david: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 1 David Nalley 2010-10-03 20:43:29 UTC
Here's my first pass. I'll admit I don't have a ton of experience with mono-specific reviews, but here we go: 

FIX: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
[ke4qqq@nalleyx60 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/gio-sharp-0.2-1.fc14.src.rpm ../RPMS/i686/gio-sharp-* ./gio-sharp.spec 
gio-sharp.src: W: invalid-url Source0: mono-gio-sharp-0.2-0-g07ac6ea.tar.gz
gio-sharp.i686: E: no-binary
gio-sharp.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gio-sharp-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package
gio-sharp-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
./gio-sharp.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: mono-gio-sharp-0.2-0-g07ac6ea.tar.gz
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.

The biggest issue I see is empty-debuginfo. 

Also - I am concerned that you have put things in /usr/lib/
I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. 

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
FIX: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines

Do you need to run gacutil on the dll?

OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
FIX: 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.

-devel should include COPYING as a %doc as well unless -devel requires %name (which would obviate the issue) See: 

OK: The spec file must be written in American English. 
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: 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.

[ke4qqq@nalleyx60 SOURCES]$ md5sum mono-gio-sharp-0.2-0-g07ac6ea.tar.gz*
f619624cad668b5c5c7f0f0f51a4616c  mono-gio-sharp-0.2-0-g07ac6ea.tar.gz
f619624cad668b5c5c7f0f0f51a4616c  mono-gio-sharp-0.2-0-g07ac6ea.tar.gz.2

OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
NA: 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: 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.
NA: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
NA: 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 %post and %postun. 
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
NA: 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: 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: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. 
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. 
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). 
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
NA: 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).
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: Header files must be in a -devel package. 
NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
FIX: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). 
-devel contains pkgconfig files and doesn't require pkgconfig

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

Note, this will fix the licensing text requirement above. 	

OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
NA: 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: 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. 
OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). 
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Comment 2 Nathaniel McCallum 2010-10-03 21:36:03 UTC
Spec URL: http://npmccallum.fedorapeople.org/banshee/gio-sharp.spec

* Sun Oct 03 2010 Nathaniel McCallum <nathaniel@natemccallum.com> - 0.2-2
- Fix -devel requires (pkgconfig, base package)
- Disable debuginfo

Other info:
- I've updated the other 3 related new packages based on these critiques
- There are no files in /usr/lib, they are in /usr/lib64 per the mono guidelines
- gacutil is run by the upstream makefiles where required

Comment 3 David Nalley 2010-10-03 22:07:47 UTC
This isn't a blocker, but you might consider annotating in a comment that there are GPLv2 licensed files included in the source, that appear to not 'sublicense' (they aren't in gio) 

The rest looks good. 


Comment 4 Nathaniel McCallum 2010-10-03 22:30:10 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: gio-sharp
Short Description: C# bindings for gio
Owners: npmccallum chkr
Branches: f13 f14

Comment 5 Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-04 19:12:45 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2010-10-06 02:53:43 UTC
clutter-sharp-0-0.8.20090828.fc14,gkeyfile-sharp-0.1-3.fc14,gudev-sharp-0.1-3.fc14,gio-sharp-0.2-2.fc14,gtk-sharp-beans-2.14.0-2.fc14,banshee-1.8.0-4.fc14,banshee-community-extensions-1.8.0-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2010-10-07 19:50:05 UTC
clutter-sharp-0-0.8.20090828.fc14, gkeyfile-sharp-0.1-3.fc14, gudev-sharp-0.1-3.fc14, gio-sharp-0.2-2.fc14, gtk-sharp-beans-2.14.0-2.fc14, banshee-1.8.0-4.fc14, banshee-community-extensions-1.8.0-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update clutter-sharp gkeyfile-sharp gudev-sharp gio-sharp gtk-sharp-beans banshee banshee-community-extensions'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clutter-sharp-0-0.8.20090828.fc14,gkeyfile-sharp-0.1-3.fc14,gudev-sharp-0.1-3.fc14,gio-sharp-0.2-2.fc14,gtk-sharp-beans-2.14.0-2.fc14,banshee-1.8.0-4.fc14,banshee-community-extensions-1.8.0-2.fc14

Comment 8 Lukas Zapletal 2010-10-15 08:51:32 UTC
Oh Nathaniel this package was already submitted a month ago by me:


We did it twice :-( and I still need a sponsorship. But I made second package - program called Docky that depends on this library. Maybe you can have a look:


Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2010-10-18 05:35:16 UTC
clutter-sharp-0-0.8.20090828.fc14, gkeyfile-sharp-0.1-3.fc14, gudev-sharp-0.1-3.fc14, gio-sharp-0.2-2.fc14, gtk-sharp-beans-2.14.0-2.fc14, banshee-1.8.0-4.fc14, banshee-community-extensions-1.8.0-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 10 Moez Roy 2014-10-08 09:00:03 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: gio-sharp gtk-sharp-beans gudev-sharp gkeyfile-sharp
New Branches: epel7 el6
Owners: moezroy npmccallum chkr 

Notes for CVS Admin: All of the above packages have npmccallum as POC and are required to build banshee. I have filed Bug 1147295 for gio-sharp only (and waited 7 days). 

Please let me know if you want me to file individual bugs for the other packages and wait 7 days?

See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147286#c1 (will need more branches soon :) )

Comment 11 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-10-08 10:10:29 UTC
WARNING: Package does not appear to exist in pkgdb currently.

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