Spec URL: http://wilqu.fr/rpms/dwb/dwb.spec SRPM URL: http://wilqu.fr/rpms/dwb/dwb-2012.02.01-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: dwb is small webkit-based web-browser in the spirit of tiling window managers, that aims to be mostly keyboard-driven. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3850323
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. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [!]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop- file-install file if it is a GUI application. [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 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 dwb-2012.02.01-1.fc18.src.rpm dwb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webkit -> web kit, web-kit, website 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint dwb-2012.02.01-1.fc18.i686.rpm dwb.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webkit -> web kit, web-kit, website 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint dwb-debuginfo-2012.02.01-1.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/799694/dwb-2012.02.01.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 9d1da367b745f4185aa35309747bb8c9 MD5SUM upstream package : 9d1da367b745f4185aa35309747bb8c9 [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 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. Issues: [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [!]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop- file-install file if it is a GUI application. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint dwb-2012.02.01-1.fc18.src.rpm dwb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webkit -> web kit, web-kit, website 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint dwb-2012.02.01-1.fc18.i686.rpm dwb.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webkit -> web kit, web-kit, website 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint dwb-debuginfo-2012.02.01-1.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. So, to summarize : I think the spelling error is a false positive removing %defattr is optional. i am however unsure about the desktop-file-install stuff, so I will check. On a side note, and as said on irc : - BuildRequires on 2 differents lines are better, as this permit easier review for patch ( but that's just nitpicking ) - there is lots of blank line, again, that's nitpicking so feel free to ignore :) and as found by Remi Collet, there is a issue with missing update-desktop-database ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NewMIMESystem ), and missing mime-type. So i think once the update-desktop issue is cleared, it would be good to go.
SPEC: http://wilqu.fr/rpms/dwb/dwb.spec SRPM: http://wilqu.fr/rpms/dwb/dwb-2012.02.01-2.fc16.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3850697 I opened a ticket for the mime-type issue: https://bitbucket.org/portix/dwb/issue/115/add-x-scheme-handler-to-mimetype
I just found out that desktop-file-validate should be run ( or desktop-file-install ), according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage So either add it in %check, or rework the spec to use desktop-file-install ( and potentially remove the patch in favor of --add-mime-type ).
SPEC: http://wilqu.fr/rpms/dwb/dwb.spec SRPM: http://wilqu.fr/rpms/dwb/dwb-2012.02.01-3.fc16.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3851119 I put desktop-file-validate in the %install section, and left the patch as it is. The mime-type will be fixed in the next release anyway.
All comments have been addressed, so that's good for me, the package can be added to the package collection.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: dwb Short Description: Dynamic web browser based on WebKit and GTK+ Owners: wilqu Branches: f15 f16 f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
dwb-2012.02.01-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dwb-2012.02.01-3.fc17
dwb-2012.02.01-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dwb-2012.02.01-3.fc16
dwb-2012.02.01-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dwb-2012.02.01-3.fc15
dwb-2012.02.01-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
dwb-2012.02.01-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
dwb-2012.02.01-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
dwb-2012.02.01-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.