Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/libreoffice.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/libreoffice-3.2.99.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Community developed Free Software Office Suite
Created attachment 451828 [details] fix build breaker
Created attachment 451830 [details] get rid of awk script
Created attachment 451832 [details] validate .desktop files packaging guidelines say it shall be so
This is going to replace OpenOffice, so we can as well close the OpenOffice.org merge review (bug #226216) as a duplicate of this one.
*** Bug 226216 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Now updated to take into account comments to date: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/libreoffice.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/libreoffice-3.2.99.1-2.fc14.src.rpm Description: Community developed Free Software Office Suite
Review results: MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. PASS MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . PASS MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. PASS MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . PASS MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . PASS MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. PASS 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. PASS MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. PASS MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. PASS 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. PASS MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. PASS 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. PASS 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. PASS MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. N/A 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 %post and %postun. N/A MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. PASS 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. N/A 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. PASS MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) PASS 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. PASS MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. PASS MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. PASS 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). PASS 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. PASS MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A 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. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} N/A MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. 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. 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. PASS 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. PASS MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. PASS 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. PASS SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. PASS SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. PASS SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. PASS SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. PASS 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. PASS SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. N/A
Created attachment 451977 [details] rpmlint results
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libreoffice Short Description: Community developed Free Software Office Suite Owners: caolanm, dtardon Branches: devel InitialCC:
Our processing script says: WARNING: Requested package name libreoffice doesn't match bug summary LibreOffice Should this be libreoffice or LibreOffice?
Adjusted bug summary. We want it to be "libreoffice" Keep it consistent as libreoffice for the upstream git repo, the fedora git dir name, the spec name and what we did previously for openoffice.org
Git done (by process-git-requests).
built as libreoffice-3.2.99.1-2.fc15
I wish you guys made an official announcement for this switch. Or maybe you did and we missed it. My question is, why don't you put one or both of Obsoletes: openoffice.org-subpackage, Provides: openoffice.org-subpackage to the libreoffice subpackages?
I mentioned it on the list some time ago, http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-October/143728.html All the subpackages do have Obsoletes: openoffice.org-subpackage in them. But can't really do a "Provides": because it would mask that the dirs are different, so extensions need to be rebuilt to install in the new libreoffice locations. I think I've now rebuilt everything that requires it.
Understood. Thanks for the clarification. By the way, how do we pronounce "libreoffice"? Is "libre" a real word? I can't find it in my dictionary. I wish they came up with a less terrible name.
Getting a name was hard, especially with the widespread desire to get "office" in there, take a look around with whois and see the extraordinary amount of domain names with office in them that are already reserved. Could have gone with some totally makey up, or something with "Suite" in it instead which is a less cluttered namespace, but that's the way the cookie crumbled. as to pronunciation, "Libre" is a word, its effectively a loan-word from French/Spanish, see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libre#English for some IPA pronunciations.