Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 819954
Review Request: lightdm-gtk - LightDM GTK+ Greeter
Last modified: 2012-06-12 14:48:30 EDT
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-gtk.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-gtk-1.1.5-4.fc17.src.rpm Description: A LightDM greeter that uses the GTK+ toolkit.
proposal: Use alternatives to handle greeter config Spec: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/lightdm/lightdm-gtk.spec SRPM: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/lightdm/lightdm-gtk-1.1.5-5.fc16.src.rpm
pre-review: - Source0 link is broken, correct one: https://launchpad.net/lightdm-gtk-greeter/trunk/1.1.5/+download/lightdm-gtk-greeter-1.1.5.tar.gz - this package is bundling ltmain.sh from 'libtool' - missing doc: ChangeLog COPYING NEWS README - validate desktop file (no errors)? - there is also a new release, update now or post-review? regarding ltmain.sh: this file doesn't get installed, so I suppose we can ignore this issue. thanks for packaging
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-gtk.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-gtk-1.1.6-1.fc17.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jun 11 2012 Rex Dieter <rdieter@fedoraproject.org> 1.1.6-1 - lightdm-gtk-greeter-1.1.6 - fix Source Url - add %%doc's - License: GPLv3+ * autofoo/libtool stuff is buildsystem only, and is meant to be bundled. :) * .desktop validation is required only for user-visible items (ie, those in menus grok'd from stuff under /usr/share/applications/)
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [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 %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 %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 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 No %config files under /usr. [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. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/greg/projects/Review/819954/lightdm-gtk-greeter-1.1.6.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : f9487ece204533000fe01ce83cfdc8a8 MD5SUM upstream package : f9487ece204533000fe01ce83cfdc8a8 [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. Approved Note: Actually the provides lightdm-greeter is unversioned. Could that cause issues in future? Can we tie a greeter to a specific lightdm base package?
versioning the lightdm-greeter dep indeed makes good sense
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: lightdm-gtk Short Description: LightDM GTK+ Greeter Owners: rdieter cwickert Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
imported into rawhide