[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458054
--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net> 2008-11-04 15:54:12 EDT ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
Clean now. :)
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
.
OK.
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
- 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.
- 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.
Says EPL, which is ok, but what's in COPYING?
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK.
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
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.
OK.
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
OK on i386 F-9.
- 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 needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next
to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla
entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the
comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and
replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc ,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
NA.
- 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 which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
An example of the correct syntax for this is:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
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. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
OK.
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK.
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK.
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
OK.
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: Large documentation files should 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: Header files must be in a -devel package.
- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
Do the static and shared libs need to be together for some reason, or could
they be separated into -devel and -static?
- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
OK.
- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go 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} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK.
- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
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. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of
the Packaging Guidelines . 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: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.
OK.
- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK.
Summary: licensing and static libs.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 5 months
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458054
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net> 2008-11-04 12:02:37 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Updated versions:
>
> Spec URL: http://arm4.org/Downloads/0.8-0.5/arm4.spec
> SRPM URL: http://arm4.org/Downloads/0.8-0.5/arm4-0.8-0.5.fc9.src.rpm
>
> I must say though, it's kind of annoying to hit an rpmlint update in the few
> short hour between submission and review :)
Fortunately that isn't THAT common. :)
> Some comments on these reported errors though. First of all, despite the
> assertion of rpmlint, there are many cases where this is a valid design choice,
> such as when a common error handler is put in a library. In this case, it was
> used in panic conditions only, and I still think that's valid. At this point,
> the fix is largely cosmetic, although I will address this more completely for a
> future release.
>
> Which brings me to the larger issue. Fixing this will always require an
> architectural rethink. At the very least, it will require a change to the
> library version number, potentially putting it out of sync with the upstream
> version. Ultimately this isn't the responsibility of the packager, but of the
> original developer, and as pointed out already the developer may just say deal
> with it. Honestly, if I weren't also the upstream developer, I wouldn't have
> changed anything. As it is, I'm fixing internal libraries that provide no
> public API for problems that I don't think exist.
>
> I guess my point is that this warning should largely be ignored during reviews.
> The dangers of not doing so are too great.
>
> OK, rant done, the new code removes these warnings.
If you really feel that strongly about it, why not make that case in a bug
against rpmlint? It's always being changed to adapt to different use cases.
And remember, rpmlint silence is not a prerequisite for approval, especially
where warnings are concerned, it's more there to encourage discussion,
documentation, and to make sure that both packager and reviewer have a better
idea what's really going on.
> With regard to your comments on the practice review, I did use the checklist at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines. I'll do a better job
> of noting the pass/fail states next time. I'll do a couple of additional
> reviews later this week when I get some of my work out of the way.
Sounds good. One or two more, plus this package's approval, and we're in
business. I'll post a formal review of this package soon.
> Thanks!
> Dave
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 5 months
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458054
--- Comment #13 from David Carter <dcarter(a)entertain-me.com> 2008-11-04 02:49:58 EDT ---
Updated versions:
Spec URL: http://arm4.org/Downloads/0.8-0.5/arm4.spec
SRPM URL: http://arm4.org/Downloads/0.8-0.5/arm4-0.8-0.5.fc9.src.rpm
I must say though, it's kind of annoying to hit an rpmlint update in the few
short hour between submission and review :)
Some comments on these reported errors though. First of all, despite the
assertion of rpmlint, there are many cases where this is a valid design choice,
such as when a common error handler is put in a library. In this case, it was
used in panic conditions only, and I still think that's valid. At this point,
the fix is largely cosmetic, although I will address this more completely for a
future release.
Which brings me to the larger issue. Fixing this will always require an
architectural rethink. At the very least, it will require a change to the
library version number, potentially putting it out of sync with the upstream
version. Ultimately this isn't the responsibility of the packager, but of the
original developer, and as pointed out already the developer may just say deal
with it. Honestly, if I weren't also the upstream developer, I wouldn't have
changed anything. As it is, I'm fixing internal libraries that provide no
public API for problems that I don't think exist.
I guess my point is that this warning should largely be ignored during reviews.
The dangers of not doing so are too great.
OK, rant done, the new code removes these warnings.
With regard to your comments on the practice review, I did use the checklist at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines. I'll do a better job
of noting the pass/fail states next time. I'll do a couple of additional
reviews later this week when I get some of my work out of the way.
Thanks!
Dave
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 5 months
[Bug 468517] New: Package Review: saoimage - Utility for displaying astronomical images
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Package Review: saoimage - Utility for displaying astronomical images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468517
Summary: Package Review: saoimage - Utility for displaying
astronomical images
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: lkundrak(a)v3.sk
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
SPEC: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/saoimage.spec
SRPM: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/saoimage-1.35.1-1.el5.src.rpm
Description:
SAOimage (pronounced S-A-0-image) is a utility for displaying astronomical
images in the X11 window environment. It was written at the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory by Mike Van Hilst in 1990 and is now maintained
by Doug Mink.
Image files can be read directly, or image data may be passed through a
named pipe (Unix) or a mailbox (VMS) from IRAF display tasks. SAOimage
provides a large selection of options for zooming, panning, scaling,
coloring, pixel readback, display blinking, and region specification.
User interactions are generally performed with the mouse. Mouse tracking in
an image's world coordinate system, usually sky coordinates, was added in
1994. You can also plot catalogs over images with WCS information in their
headers.
The SAOimage desktop includes, a main image display window, a button menu
panel, a display magnifier, a pan and zoom reference image, and a color bar.
A color table graph window can be brought up by clicking on the color bar.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 5 months