Spec URL: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0THh1GbRWnATncxRy1WMXNiQnM/edit SRPM URL: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0THh1GbRWnAbERDRVpXUlNXdTQ/edit Description: OpenMAX plugin for gstreamer Fedora Account System Username: aqualie
This is my first package and am seeking a sponsor. Here is a link to my koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4724781
Informal Review: rpmlint output gst-openmax.spec: W: more-than-one-%changelog-section gst-openmax.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: file:///home/makerpm/gst-openmax-0.2.tar.gz gst-openmax.src: W: more-than-one-%changelog-section gst-openmax.src: W: invalid-url Source0: file:///home/makerpm/gst-openmax-0.2.tar.gz 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. BAD: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guideline. • Upstream version(gstreamer.freedesktop.org/src/gst-openmax/) is gst-openmax-0.10.1 • RPM version says gst-openmax-0.2 OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . BAD: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . 1. summary does not provide a concise description of the package 2. changelog tag specified twice 3. source tag not pointing to upstream source 4. upstream documentation missing 5. files tag points to a specific libdir 6. doc tag does not include all documentation in build GOOD: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . GOOD: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. BAD: 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. • Not included in doc tag GOOD: The spec file must be written in American English. GOOD: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. BAD: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. • Source does not use an upstream URL GOOD: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. • Builds fine on Mock & Koji(ARM, PPC, S390, & x86_64) GOOD: 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. GOOD: 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. GOOD: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. GOOD: 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. GOOD: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. GOOD: 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. GOOD: 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. • Uses gstreamer library directory which is specified GOOD: 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) GOOD: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. GOOD: Each package must consistently use macros. GOOD: The package must contain code, or permissable content. GOOD: 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). GOOD: 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. BAD: Static libraries must be in a -static package. • Package only provides libraries GOOD: Development files must be in a -devel package. GOOD: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} • Development package is created by rpm GOOD: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. GOOD: 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. GOOD: 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. GOOD: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. BAD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it ▪ Not included in spec file BAD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. • summary does not provide a concise description of the package GOOD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. • Built without any issues GOOD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. • x86_64: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4747611 • ARM: http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1276345 • PPC: http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=803129 • S390: http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=876947 BAD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. • Unable to list codecs per documentation instructions GOOD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. • None used. GOOD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. GOOD: 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. GOOD: 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. GOOD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
Created attachment 656127 [details] This is the updated source rpm file
This new package needs a review.
Changes: BAD: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guideline. FIXED: changed the name to gst-openmax-0.10.1 BAD: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . 1. summary does not provide a concise description of the package 2. changelog tag specified twice 3. source tag not pointing to upstream source 4. upstream documentation missing 5. files tag points to a specific libdir 6. doc tag does not include all documentation in build FIXED: 1. Chaged the summary 2. Only one changelog tag is being used 3. Source tag points to the proper source 4. Added documentation in the %doc 5. changed to the macro 6. Added all the documentation to the build BAD: 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. • Not included in doc tag FIXED: added all the files BAD: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. • Source does not use an upstream URL FIXED: Changed to upstream URL BAD: Static libraries must be in a -static package. • Package only provides libraries COMMENT: it is not a static library, but a gstreamer plugin BAD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it ▪ Not included in spec file FIXED: Added COPYING file to the %doc BAD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. • summary does not provide a concise description of the package FIXED: Changed the summary BAD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. • Unable to list codecs per documentation instructions FIXED: Added aditional file called README.fedora with proper instructions
I'm not sure what's going on in this ticket. It's great if a reviewer reviews an own package, but the comments are difficult to read. Please use a little bit of indentation as in emails. Here are a few comments. Download of the src.rpm failed for unknown reasons, only could view the spec file: > rpmlint output > gst-openmax.spec: W: more-than-one-%changelog-section This warning from rpmlint deserved a comment. Actually, you should comment on everything it says about the package to eliminate false positives. Here, rpmlint is correct. The spec file contains two %changelog sections, which is bad. Create and maintain a single %changelog per spec file. > gst-openmax.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: file:///home/makerpm/gst-openmax-0.2.tar.gz No comment either? Give "rpmlint -i …" a try. Run it on src.rpm and built rpms. No need to run it on the individual spec file. > Summary: Plugin That's very half-hearted. Could it be a little bit more verbose, please? > %description > Plugin that allows communication with OpenMAX IL components. And no mentioning of GStreamer? Odd. > • Source does not use an upstream URL Why not? What did you find in the Packaging Guidelines about this? > BAD: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > • Package only provides libraries ?? Please explain. The spec file places a statically linked build of the plugin file in a -devel package, which is as wrong as it could get. > GOOD: Development files must be in a -devel package. No. There must not be any -devel package for this software. > GOOD: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = > %{version}-%{release} > • Development package is created by rpm You misunderstood the guidelines. > GOOD: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must > be removed in the spec if they are built. Why "GOOD"? You did _not_ remove them. > BAD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it > ▪ Not included in spec file Please clarify. Where is the license file? > BAD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should > contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > • summary does not provide a concise description of the package Indeed. How about fixing it then? > BAD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. > A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. > • Unable to list codecs per documentation instructions ??? > %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/local/lib/gstreamer-0.10 What's this? We don't do anything in /usr/local withing RPM packages.
You just looked over the old package, the updated one is in the attachment section.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process The package contributor has not yet merged those changes. The attached src.rpm is not from the package contributer and does not fix all issues in the original submission either. Its %changelog section also doesn't list the changes, but just says "fixed spec file". Even if a second person contributes a modified src.rpm and spec file, reviewer's comments ought to be read and commented on by the package contributor.
Michael Schwendt, amartinencosbr will be managing this bug request. Please review and use any attachments uploaded.
Well, then be so kind and open a new package review request, so it is clear who is the submitter, who needs sponsorship, and so on. Also reply to what I pointed out in comment 7. There's enough that still applies to the attached src.rpm, too.
What is the status of this? Ultimately the package should likely be named gstreamer-openmax (or gstreamer-omx) based on all the other gstreamer packages in Fedora.
It seems there is no interest in working on these packages.
As this review is dead and unresponsive I've submitted a new one with the latest package etc. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 980934 ***