Spec URL: http://chkr.fedorapeople.org/review/dbus-sharp-glib.spec SRPM URL: http://chkr.fedorapeople.org/review/dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: C# bindings for D-Bus glib main loop integration
I'll be happy to review this for you - I've got some mock test builds going now; and should have proper feedback to you by tonight. :)
Sorry for the delay - with all the stuff for halloween preparations and various other little real-life issues, I've not had the time to properly review this as of yet. I promise I'll get to it within the next day or two. Thanks. :)
Peter, do you think you can have a look at this in the next days? If not, that's no issue - I'll find someone else to review it. Please let me know what do you prefer. Since this package is the last missing dependency for the new banshee release, it would be great if the review could be closed soon.
Ack, I'm sorry for the delay. I promise this review will be the first thing on my To-Do list for tomorrow. Thanks for your patience!
Peter, what's the status? ;-) If you don't find the time, please can you add a note and reset the review flag so that someone else can take over? Thanks!
I'm hardly qualified to do a review of this package, but I suppose it's worth noting that I used the SRPM submitted for this review to help build Banshee 2.2 for my own use. I can happily report that this package compiles correctly in mock, and that Banshee seems to be working correctly when compiled against it. =)
Right, I guess I'll take a shot at helping out with a review (just informal at this point, unless Peter wants to hand it over). This is my first package review aside from the practice reviews I did when applying to be a packager, and I don't have much experience with the Mono guidelines, so apologies for any mistakes. MUST Items ========== OK - rpmlint must be run on all rpms $ rpmlint dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm dbus-sharp-glib-devel-0.5.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: E: no-binary dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib dbus-sharp-glib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. After install: $ rpmlint dbus-sharp-glib dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: E: no-binary dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. These errors seem to be the usual ones seen with mono packages, nothing significant. OK - Package must meet naming guidelines OK - Spec file name must match base package name OK - Package must meet packaging guidelines OK - Package must meet licensing guidelines OK - License tag must match actual license OK - Any license files must be in %doc OK - Spec file must be in American English OK - Spec file must be legible OK - Sources must match upstream $ sha1sum dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz.fedora bff1d3e8def9f5c7f956adffdef3a860a05e0e95 dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz bff1d3e8def9f5c7f956adffdef3a860a05e0e95 dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz.fedora OK - Package must build on at least one primary arch OK - Arches that the package doesn't build on must be excluded with a relevant bug In this case mono simply isn't available on some arches, so I don't think this is a blocking issue. OK - All necessary build dependencies must be in BuildRequires N/A - Locales must be handled properly N/A - Binary rpms containing libraries must call ldconfig OK - Package must not bundle system libraries N/A - Relocatable packages must have rationalization OK - Package must own all directories it creates OK - Package must not list a file more than once in %files OK - Files must have correct permissions OK - Macros must be consistent OK - Package must contain code or permissible content N/A - Large documentation files must be in a -doc subpackage OK - %doc files must not affect program operation N/A - Header files must be in a -devel subpackage N/A - Static libraries must be in a -static package N/A - Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package OK - -devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - Package must NOT contain any .la libtool archives N/A - Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items ============ N/A - If the package is missing license text in a separate file, the packager should query upstream for it N/A - Description and summary should contain translations if available OK - Package should build in mock OK - Package should build on all supported architectures Koji scratch build seems okay: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3511249 OK - Package should function as described Built and used banshee-2.2 against this, and it seems to be working well. N/A - Scriptlets should be sane N/A - Non-devel subpackages should require the base package with a full version OK - pkgconfig files should be placed appropriately N/A - File dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin should require package instead N/A - Binaries/scripts should have man pages Mono-specific Items =================== OK - DLLs must be registered with gacutil OK - .pc files must be in a -devel package OK - Empty -debuginfo packages must not be built OK - Package must NOT contain any pre-compiled .dll or .exe files OK - Package must NOT contain .dll files from other projects OK - Package should not redefine _libdir Issues ====== 1) There's no link to a tracking bug for the architectures that this package doesn't build on. However, this is something that covers pretty much all mono packages, so I don't think that's too important. 2) The main package description is missing a full stop, and the description for the -devel package should probably mention GLib at some point. I don't see any blocking issues though, but I'm sure I missed something. =)
Ack, I'm sorry Christian. Stuff with family/friends/work has just kept cropping up and I've not had time to do this properly. I'll leave it open for another wanting QA-er to take care of. (I should have done this sooner, my apologies.)
If there are no objections I'd be happy to take this.
Okay, I'll take over this review. MUST Items ========== OK - rpmlint must be run on all rpms $ rpmlint dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm dbus-sharp-glib-devel-0.5.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: E: no-binary dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib dbus-sharp-glib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. After install: $ rpmlint dbus-sharp-glib dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: E: no-binary dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. These errors seem to be the usual ones seen with mono packages, nothing significant. OK - Package must meet naming guidelines OK - Spec file name must match base package name OK - Package must meet packaging guidelines OK - Package must meet licensing guidelines OK - License tag must match actual license OK - Any license files must be in %doc OK - Spec file must be in American English OK - Spec file must be legible OK - Sources must match upstream $ sha1sum dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz.fedora bff1d3e8def9f5c7f956adffdef3a860a05e0e95 dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz bff1d3e8def9f5c7f956adffdef3a860a05e0e95 dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz.fedora OK - Package must build on at least one primary arch OK - Arches that the package doesn't build on must be excluded with a relevant bug In this case mono simply isn't available on some arches, so I don't think this is a blocking issue. OK - All necessary build dependencies must be in BuildRequires N/A - Locales must be handled properly N/A - Binary rpms containing libraries must call ldconfig OK - Package must not bundle system libraries N/A - Relocatable packages must have rationalization OK - Package must own all directories it creates OK - Package must not list a file more than once in %files OK - Files must have correct permissions OK - Macros must be consistent OK - Package must contain code or permissible content N/A - Large documentation files must be in a -doc subpackage OK - %doc files must not affect program operation N/A - Header files must be in a -devel subpackage N/A - Static libraries must be in a -static package N/A - Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package OK - -devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - Package must NOT contain any .la libtool archives N/A - Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items ============ N/A - If the package is missing license text in a separate file, the packager should query upstream for it N/A - Description and summary should contain translations if available OK - Package should build in mock OK - Package should build on all supported architectures Koji scratch build seems okay: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3511249 OK - Package should function as described Built and used banshee-2.2 against this, and it seems to be working well. N/A - Scriptlets should be sane N/A - Non-devel subpackages should require the base package with a full version OK - pkgconfig files should be placed appropriately N/A - File dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin should require package instead N/A - Binaries/scripts should have man pages Mono-specific Items =================== OK - DLLs must be registered with gacutil OK - .pc files must be in a -devel package OK - Empty -debuginfo packages must not be built OK - Package must NOT contain any pre-compiled .dll or .exe files OK - Package must NOT contain .dll files from other projects OK - Package should not redefine _libdir Issues ====== 1) There's no link to a tracking bug for the architectures that this package doesn't build on. However, this is something that covers pretty much all mono packages, so I don't think that's too important. 2) The main package description is missing a full stop, and the description for the -devel package should probably mention GLib at some point. None of these issues are blocking, so I think this package can be ACCEPTED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: dbus-sharp-glib Short Description: C# bindings for D-Bus glib main loop integration Owners: chkr Branches: f16 f15 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
gnome-do-plugins-0.8.4-3.fc16.1,banshee-community-extensions-2.2.0-1.fc16,banshee-2.2.1-1.fc16,dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc16,dbus-sharp-0.7.0-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-do-plugins-0.8.4-3.fc16.1,banshee-community-extensions-2.2.0-1.fc16,banshee-2.2.1-1.fc16,dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc16,dbus-sharp-0.7.0-3.fc16
Package gnome-do-plugins-0.8.4-3.fc16.1, banshee-community-extensions-2.2.0-1.fc16, banshee-2.2.1-1.fc16, dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc16, dbus-sharp-0.7.0-3.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing gnome-do-plugins-0.8.4-3.fc16.1 banshee-community-extensions-2.2.0-1.fc16 banshee-2.2.1-1.fc16 dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc16 dbus-sharp-0.7.0-3.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-16171/gnome-do-plugins-0.8.4-3.fc16.1,banshee-community-extensions-2.2.0-1.fc16,banshee-2.2.1-1.fc16,dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc16,dbus-sharp-0.7.0-3.fc16 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
gnome-do-plugins-0.8.4-3.fc16.1, banshee-community-extensions-2.2.0-1.fc16, banshee-2.2.1-1.fc16, dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc16, dbus-sharp-0.7.0-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.