Spec URL: http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/lbdb/lbdb.spec SRPM URL: http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/lbdb/lbdb-0.38-1.src.rpm Description: The Little Brother's Database (lbdb) consists of a set of small tools that collect mail addresses from several sources and offer these addresses to the external query feature of the Mutt mail reader.
Hello This is an informal review [X] rpmlint must be run on every package. [X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the [X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [X] 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. [X] The spec file must be written in American English. [X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [X] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Upstream md5sum: a8e65f1400c90818ff324dc4fd67eba2 Package md5sum: a8e65f1400c90818ff324dc4fd67eba2 [X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Build successful on Fedora 15 x86_64 [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. [NA] 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. [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. [X] 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. [X] 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. [X] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [X] Each package must consistently use macros. [X] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [NA] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [X] 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. [NA] Header files must be in a -devel package. [NA] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [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. [NA] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. [X] 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. [X] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
A few remark : - patchs are not commented, and I think they should explain why they are here, and if pushed upstream or not - Buildroot: should be removed - I think %defattr is deprecated as well - %dist is missing from release I am not sure that the authors name and the setup instruction belong to %description.
Christophe, any news ?
Updated the .spec at http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lbdb/lbdb.spec , new srpm at http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lbdb/lbdb-0.38-2.fc16.src.rpm * Sun Mar 04 2012 Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau> - 0.38-2 - add %%{?dist} in release - remove use of BuildRoot: - remove use of %%defattr - remove usage instruction from %%description - comment patches I haven't commented about whether the patches have been sent upstream or not because I don't know, I carried them from the openSUSE package.
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST No %config files under /usr. [x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint lbdb-0.38-2.fc18.src.rpm lbdb.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %_libexecdir 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint lbdb-0.38-2.fc18.i686.rpm lbdb.i686: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/lbdb-0.38/INSTALL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint lbdb-debuginfo-0.38-2.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/misc/743612/lbdb_0.38.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : a8e65f1400c90818ff324dc4fd67eba2 MD5SUM upstream package : a8e65f1400c90818ff324dc4fd67eba2 [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source: http://www.spinnaker.de/debian/lbdb_%{version}.tar.gz (lbdb_%{version}.tar.gz) Patch: lbdb.rc.diff (lbdb.rc.diff) Patch1: lbdb-0.38-evolution.diff (lbdb-0.38-evolution.diff) Patch2: lbdb- hostname.diff (lbdb-hostname.diff) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint lbdb-0.38-2.fc18.src.rpm lbdb.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %_libexecdir 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint lbdb-0.38-2.fc18.i686.rpm lbdb.i686: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/lbdb-0.38/INSTALL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint lbdb-debuginfo-0.38-2.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2 External plugins: on rpmlint output, that's false positive, or minor detail. The INSTALL file should likely not be here, but that's not a blocking item for the review. And the second one is bogus since the comment is about using the macro. So the package is good to go for me.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: lbdb Short Description: collect email addresses from several sources and offer them in mutt Owners: teuf Branches: f17 f16 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests). Michael, please take ownership of review BZs, thanks!
lbdb-0.38-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lbdb-0.38-2.fc17
lbdb-0.38-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lbdb-0.38-2.fc16
lbdb-0.38-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
lbdb-0.38-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.