https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928584
--- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com> ---
[+] OK
[-] NA
[?] Issue
** Mandatory review guidelines: **
[+] rpmlint output:
[asinha@localhost SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/ros-std_msgs.spec
./ros-std_msgs-0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc19.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm
ros-std_msgs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags, megs,
mugs
ros-std_msgs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiarrays ->
multiracial
ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags,
megs, mugs
ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiarrays ->
multiracial
ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-std_msgs.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/std_msgs/msg/Empty.msg
ros-std_msgs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags, megs,
mugs
ros-std_msgs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiarrays ->
multiracial
ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) msgs -> mags, megs,
mugs
ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs ->
mags, megs, mugs
ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.
[asinha@localhost SRPMS]$
[+] License is acceptable (...)
[+] License field in spec is correct
[+] License files included in package %docs if included in source package
[+] License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed
[+] Spec written in American English
[+] Spec is legible
[+] Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
[asinha@localhost SRPMS]$ review-md5check.sh ../SPECS/ros-std_msgs.spec
Getting
https://github.com/ros/std_msgs/archive/de0dcf16baaee40f756b9e55656fe2e74...
to /tmp/review/std_msgs-0.4.11-de0dcf1.tar.gz
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
100 154 100 154 0 0 122 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 123
100 6947 100 6947 0 0 3041 0 0:00:02 0:00:02 --:--:-- 19569
67999742fb86f0ed7b2880e5917ddf5a /tmp/review/std_msgs-0.4.11-de0dcf1.tar.gz
67999742fb86f0ed7b2880e5917ddf5a
/home/asinha/rpmbuild/SOURCES/std_msgs-0.4.11-de0dcf1.tar.gz
removed ‘/tmp/review/std_msgs-0.4.11-de0dcf1.tar.gz’
removed directory: ‘/tmp/review’
[asinha@localhost SRPMS]$
[+] Build succeeds on at least one primary arch
[+] Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed
[+] BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary
[-] Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/*
[+] %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files
[+] No bundled libs
[-] Relocatability is justified
[+] Package owns all directories it creates
[?] Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own
[asinha@localhost result]$ review-req-check
== ros-std_msgs-0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20.noarch.rpm ==
Provides:
ros-std_msgs = 0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20
Requires:
python(abi) = 2.7
ros-release
== ros-std_msgs-0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20.src.rpm ==
Provides:
Requires:
cmake
python-setuptools-devel
catkin-devel
python-genmsg-devel
python-gencpp-devel
python-genlisp-devel
python-genpy-devel
== ros-std_msgs-devel-0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20.noarch.rpm ==
Provides:
pkgconfig(std_msgs) = 0.4.11
ros-std_msgs = 0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20
ros-std_msgs-devel = 0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20
Requires:
/usr/bin/pkg-config
[asinha@localhost result]$
^^
1.Just confirming: Which package that is Required by this one is the
%{_datadir}/common-lisp/ros/ directory
owned by?
2. Shouldn't the package require the non devel versions of the python BRs to
function?
[+] No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files
[+] File permissions are sane
[+] Package contains permissible code or content
[-] Large docs go in -doc subpackage
[?] %doc files not required at runtime
There is no documentation at all. No licence or even a README :/
[-] Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides
[+] Development files go in -devel package
[+] -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa
Noarch so isa isn't needed
[+] No .la files
[-] GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install
[-] File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification
[+] File names are valid UTF-8
** Optional review guidelines: **
[?] Query upstream about including license files
We can, but I don't think ROS intends to include licence files in any of it's
packages. Should we make ros-release include a license file if it doesn't
already, since all these packages will be expected to Require it?
[-] Translations of description, summary
[+] Builds in mock
[+] Builds on all arches
[-] Functions as described (e.g. no crashes)
[-] Scriptlets are sane
[+] Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible
[+] .pc file subpackage placement is sensible
[+] No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin
[-] Include man pages if available
Naming guidelines:
[+] Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+
[+] Package names are sane
[+] No naming conflicts
[+] Spec file name matches base package name
[+] Version is sane
[+] Version does not contain ~
[+] Release is sane
[+] %dist tag
[+] Case used only when necessary
[-] Renaming handled correctly
Packaging guidelines:
[+] Useful without external bits
[+] No kmods
[-] Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep
[+] Sources contain only redistributable code or content
[+] Spec format is sane
[+] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target
[+] No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17
[-] Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run
[-] Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17
[-] No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local
[+] Changelog in prescribed format
[+] No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags
[+] Summary does not end in a period
[-] Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6
[-] Correct %clean section on < EL6
[?] Requires correct, justified where necessary
The directory owning the list sub dir needs clarification
[+] Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly
[-] All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc
[-] Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x)
[-] Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc
[+] Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise
[-] PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs
[+] Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified
[-] Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6
[+] No static executables
[+] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs
[+] Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config
[+] No config files under /usr
[-] Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir
[-] .desktop files are sane
[+] Spec uses macros consistently
[+] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate
[+] Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed
[+] %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work
[+] Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time
[+] Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir
[+] No software collections (scl)
[+] Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name
[+] Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs
[+] %global, not %define
[-] Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it
[-] Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel
[+] File ops preserve timestamps
[+] Parallel make
[+] No Requires(pre,post) notation
[-] User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups)
[-] Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www
[-] Conflicts are justified
[+] One project per package
[+] No bundled fonts
[-] Patches have appropriate commentary
[-] Available test suites executed in %check
[-] tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15
** Python guidelines: **
[?] Runtime Requires correct
Should this package require other ros python packages, the non devel versions
of ones required as BRs?
[-] Python macros declared on < EL6
[+] All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts
[?] Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated
Should egg info be generated for this package?
[-] Provides/Requires properly filtered
[-] Code that invokes gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array() Requires numpy
Are all the files in the non devel package files that are
required at runtime? I think they are. Do you think you need to split the
package further in to a python and a lisp subpackage? Then we'd have:
a main package
a python bindings package
a list package
a c++ headers package
The package is mostly OK. Some tiny issues that need to be handled.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZIhiuj0osh&a=cc_unsubscribe