Spec URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/sombok.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/sombok-2.0.5-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Sombok library package performs Line Breaking Algorithm described in Unicode Standards Annex #14 (UAX #14). East_Asian_Width informative properties defined by Annex #11 (UAX #11) may be concerned to determine breaking positions. This package also implements ``default'' Grapheme Cluster segmentation described in Annex #29 (UAX #29).
Initial informal review: $ rpmlint sombok-2.0.5-1.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint sombok.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Successfully compiled into binary rpms and installed. Both: sombok-2.0.5-1.fc15.i686.rpm sombok-devel-2.0.5-1.fc15.i686.rpm Damian
rpmlint output: [veeti@veeti-pc result]$ rpmlint *.rpm sombok.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/sombok-2.0.5/COPYING sombok-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. - Inform upstream about the FSF address. -------------------- Informal review: MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. NEEDS WORK: - The devel package's requirement for the base package needs to be in the format "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}". (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package) - The %files section could be a bit more explicit, since this package only contains a few files. For example, just use "libsombok.so.*" for the library files, "sombok*.h" for the headers. - I don't think that the README.ja_JP file should be included in %doc. 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. 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 sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. OK: [veeti@veeti-pc tmp]$ md5sum sombok* af78a04e07998aedc12a841fa2b168d2 sombok-srpm.tar.gz af78a04e07998aedc12a841fa2b168d2 sombok-upstream.tar.gz MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. 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. OK MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 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. 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. 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. 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. N/A MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK 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. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}. NEEDS WORK (as mentioned above). MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK - find is unnecessary since there's only one .la file. MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. N/A MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK EPEL: rpm in EPEL5 and below does not automatically create dependencies for pkgconfig files. Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must Requires: pkgconfig (for directory ownership and usability). NEEDS WORK --------- Issues: - The devel package's requirement for the base package needs to be in the format "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}". (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package) - The %files section could be a bit more explicit, since this package only contains a few files. For example, just use "libsombok.so.*" for the library files, "sombok*.h" for the headers. - I don't think that the README.ja_JP file should be included in %doc. - find is unnecessary since there's only one .la file. - devel package needs to require pkgconfig for EPEL5.
I'm Veeti's sponsor, taking over.
If libthai is not available on EPEL-5, then please change the macro to %if 0%{?rhel} == 5 BuildRequires: libthai-devel %endif which reflects the purpose a lot better. Using a single comparison operator and taking its negative is not very clean, since you can simply combine them to %if 0%{?rhel} == 0 or use %if 0%{?fedora} > 12 etc. ** I guess ``default'' in the %description should just read "default". ** rpmlint output: $ rpmlint sombok-* sombok.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/sombok-2.0.5/COPYING sombok-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. This is basically OK, but you should contact upstream and ask them to update COPYING to a current version. ** Review: MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSWORK - Fix the macro as instructed above. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. 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. OK - Not all source files contain license headers, but README specifies license as GPLv2+. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK $ md5sum sombok-2.0.5.tar.gz ../SOURCES/sombok-2.0.5.tar.gz af78a04e07998aedc12a841fa2b168d2 sombok-2.0.5.tar.gz af78a04e07998aedc12a841fa2b168d2 ../SOURCES/sombok-2.0.5.tar.gz MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK - In principle doxygen documentation exists, but none is (or even can be) actually generated. - This would go into -doc. MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK - I don't agree with Veeti. Since README is anyway included and it seems to hold the same information as README.ja_JP, I would include the latter one as well. MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so 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. OK MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK EPEL: Clean section exists. OK EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. NEEDSWORK - You need to add Requires: pkgconfig if you want to ship for EPEL-4 or EPEL-5. ** Please fix the macro and the quotation marks before import to GIT. This package has been APPROVED
Please also address the following issues issues raised by Veeti before import to GIT: - The devel package's requirement for the base package needs to be in the format "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}". (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package) - The %files section could be a bit more explicit, since this package only contains a few files. For example, just use "libsombok.so.*" for the library files, "sombok*.h" for the headers.
(In reply to comment #2) > - find is unnecessary since there's only one .la file. Yes, but find is also safer and easier to use.
Thanks for the review Veeti and Jussi. Updated spec and SRPMS, including all requested fixes : http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/sombok.spec http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/sombok-2.0.5-2.fc15.src.rpm
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: sombok Short Description: Unicode Text Segmentation Package Owners: xavierb Branches: f15 el5 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: sombok New Branches: f16 Owners: xavierb Looks like this package missed the f16 mass branching...
sombok-2.0.5-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sombok-2.0.5-2.el5
sombok-2.0.5-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sombok-2.0.5-2.fc15
sombok-2.0.5-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sombok-2.0.5-2.el6
sombok-2.0.5-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sombok-2.0.5-2.fc16
sombok-2.0.5-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
sombok-2.0.5-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
sombok-2.0.5-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
sombok-2.0.5-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.