PackagingDrafts/ReviewTemplate

= Package Review Template =

This is a draft package review template based on the MUST and SHOULD items listed in the Packaging Review Guidelines. Maybe more items should be merged in from the full Packaging Guidelines but given that many reviewers base their reviews on the former also out of simplicity, it seems a good starting point for a checklist that can be used in reviews when doing the formal review part of a package review.

Draft review template
Here is the review:

+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing

MUST Items: [] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. <> [] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [FIXME?: covers this list and more] [] 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. [] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. < > [] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [] 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. [] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [] 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. [] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [] 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. [] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [] 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. [] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [] 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. [] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [] 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. [] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items: [] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [] SHOULD: 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. [] SHOULD: 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. [] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.

Other references

 * Category:Package Maintainers/Review Template

Comments

 * (2008-10-03) | discussion started on fedora-packaging list
 * (2008-10-06) initial draft page created --JensPetersen
 * it is probably worth adding links to the specific sections of the packaging guidelines
 * the easiest way to maintain this may be to merge this into Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
 * ChrisWeyl | suggested the idea of having a webtool to help pre-review package submissions and automate the review workflow more