|Summary:||DeviceKit - Device Enumeration Framework|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||David Zeuthen <davidz>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Matthias Clasen <mclasen>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||fedora-package-review, mclasen, notting|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2008-07-24 04:22:42 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description David Zeuthen 2008-07-21 02:13:57 UTC
Description : DeviceKit is a framework for enumerating devices. http://people.freedesktop.org/~david/gdu-dkd-review/DeviceKit.spec http://people.freedesktop.org/~david/gdu-dkd-review/DeviceKit-002-0.git20080720.fc10.src.rpm
Comment 2 Matthias Clasen 2008-07-21 03:47:45 UTC
Hmm, rpmlint is busted, so no rpmlint check for now... Looking over the spec file informally, I notice 2 things: 1) you probably need to require udev for /etc/udev/rules.d ownership 2) the handling of %doc seems obscure. Whats the purpose of that ?
Comment 3 Matthias Clasen 2008-07-21 14:31:29 UTC
rpmlint output: [mclasen@golem ~]$ rpmlint DeviceKit-002-0.git20080720.fc10.i386.rpm DeviceKit-devel-002-0.git20080720.fc10.i386.rpm DeviceKit-debuginfo-002-0.git20080720.fc10.i386.rpm DeviceKit.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.freedesktop.DeviceKit.conf DeviceKit.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/98-devkit.rules 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. I'd double-check, but I believe it is common practise to treat neither dbus conf files nor udev rules as conf files.
Comment 4 Matthias Clasen 2008-07-21 14:54:05 UTC
package name: ok spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: - you should probably straighten the %doc stuff - Source: points to a nonexisting location, should just make it a filename and add a comment explaining that it is a git snapshot license: ok license field: ok license file: ok spec language: ok spec legibility: ok upstream sources: ok, see above for Source: tag problem ExcludeArch: n/a BuildRequires: ok locale handling: ok ldconfig: ok relocatable: n/a directory ownership: - need to Requires: udev for /etc/udev/rules.d duplicate files: ok permissions: ok %clean: ok macro use: consistent content: permissible large docs: n/a doc content: ok headers: ok static libs: n/a pc files: ok shared libs: ok devel deps: ok libtool archives: ok gui apps: n/a file/directory ownership: - /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces should be owned by dbus %install: ok utf8 filenames: ok
Comment 5 David Zeuthen 2008-07-21 14:56:35 UTC
(In reply to comment #3) > I'd double-check, but I believe it is common practise to treat neither dbus conf > files nor udev rules as conf files. Sure, of course these are not configuration files - rpmlint and/or the guidelines are just busted.
Comment 6 David Zeuthen 2008-07-21 15:00:34 UTC
(In reply to comment #2) > 1) you probably need to require udev for /etc/udev/rules.d ownership Should do that anyway. Fixed locally. > 2) the handling of %doc seems obscure. Whats the purpose of that ? The fact that some files are not in the root directory of the tarball. It's not particulary obscure. Suggestions on how to fix that welcome.
Comment 7 David Zeuthen 2008-07-21 15:03:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #4) > - Source: points to a nonexisting location, should just make it a filename Fixed. > and add a comment explaining that it is a git snapshot It's evident from the Release tag that it's a git snapshot. > - /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces should be owned by dbus Yeah, that's a D-Bus problem. Thanks for the review.
Comment 8 David Zeuthen 2008-07-21 17:16:44 UTC
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #2) > > 2) the handling of %doc seems obscure. Whats the purpose of that ? > > The fact that some files are not in the root directory of the tarball. It's not > particulary obscure. Suggestions on how to fix that welcome. Just %doc README AUTHORS NEWS COPYING HACKING doc/TODO seemed to do what I wanted. I've uploaded new SPEC and SRPMS with all fixes at the same location - does this look OK? Thanks.
Comment 9 Matthias Clasen 2008-07-21 18:25:15 UTC
Yes, looks good now. Even though the source url guidelines really want you put a comment there explaining how to go from git url to tarball....
Comment 10 David Zeuthen 2008-07-21 20:29:16 UTC
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: DeviceKit Short Description: Device Enumeration Framework Owners: davidz Branches: InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
Comment 11 Kevin Fenzi 2008-07-22 15:59:04 UTC