Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-character-tables/gap-character-tables.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-character-tables/gap-character-tables-1.1.3-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This package provides the Character Table Library by Thomas Breuer. The package structured mimics that of the corresponding Debian package, including the extra Provides. (A similar technique was used in the gap-table-of-marks package.) While gap-table-of-marks is not strictly required, some important functionality is only available when gap-table-of-marks is installed, so I added a Requires. Distributions with a Suggests or Recommends functionality have used that instead.
I would like to review this package. I see it follows the same pattern of "gap-table-of-marks" already in rawhide (sorry for not breaking lines at 80 columns, checking how it works with a very wide bugzilla window). ok MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint SRPMS/gap-character-tables-1.1.3-1.fc18.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/gap-character-tables-1.1.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ++ MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ++ MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. I believe the exemption is the Provides: gap-pkg-ctbllib = %{version}-%{release} that also follows gap-table-of-marks pattern. ok MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. ++ MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. ++ MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. The package was recently split from the main gap package for easier update. I could not find explicit license information. It is mostly data files and the main package is GPLv2+, same in gap-character-tables.spec. 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. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. md5sum ctbllib1r1p3.tar.gz bd56def40b77f8a9b38130631f743bf5 ctbllib1r1p3.tar.gz ok MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. ok 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. Not confirmed to build on all architectures. ok 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. ok MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. ok 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. ok 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. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) 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. (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). ok 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 MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. ok MUST: Development files must be 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} ok MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. ok 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. ok 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. ok MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. ++ 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. Commented above aout no license information, that is a side effect of recent split of main gap package. ok SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. ok SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. ++ SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ok SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. ok SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. ok SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. ok 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. ok 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. ok SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. Only issues I see are the not clear license, and would like to have some insight about the "exemption clause", that I fully agree with what is in the spec (the Provides) as it uses a sane package name instead of an abbreviation that only makes sense in the "gap packages namespace".
Sorry I previously did not do a proper review and ended up delaying this package. --%<--%<--%<--%<-- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== 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 %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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 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 Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if 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 is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate 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. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint gap-character-tables-1.1.3-1.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gap-character-tables-1.1.3-1.fc18.noarch.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/pcpa/rpmbuild/785903/ctbllib1r1p3.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : bd56def40b77f8a9b38130631f743bf5 MD5SUM upstream package : bd56def40b77f8a9b38130631f743bf5 [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]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [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. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: 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. Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 External plugins: --%<--%<--%<--%<-- I consider the package approved.
Thanks for the review! You didn't delay the package. That would be me. But I'm finally coming back to life. :-)
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gap-character-tables Short Description: GAP Character Table Library Owners: jjames Branches: f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
gap-character-tables-1.1.3-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gap-character-tables-1.1.3-1.fc17
gap-character-tables-1.1.3-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
gap-character-tables-1.1.3-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.