| |
@@ -4,61 +4,59 @@
|
| |
|
| |
== Package Review Process
|
| |
|
| |
- Contributors and reviewers MUST follow the link:Package_Review_Process[Package Review Process], with the following exceptions:
|
| |
+ Contributors and reviewers MUST follow the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process[Package Review Process], with the following exceptions:
|
| |
|
| |
- * FPC grants an explicit exemption from the process, as indicated link:Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exception_Procedure[here].
|
| |
- * The package is being created so that multiple versions of the same package can coexist in the distribution. The package MUST be properly named according to the Packaging:Naming#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name[naming guidelines] and MUST NOT conflict with all other versions of the same package. If these requirements are not met, an exemption is required as above.
|
| |
+ * FPC grants an explicit exemption from the process, as indicated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure[here].
|
| |
+ * The package is being created so that multiple versions of the same package can coexist in the distribution. The package MUST be properly named according to the xref:Naming.adoc#_multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name[naming guidelines] and MUST NOT conflict with all other versions of the same package. If these requirements are not met, an exemption is required as above.
|
| |
|
| |
== Things To Check On Review
|
| |
|
| |
There are many many things to check for a review. This list is provided to assist new reviewers in identifying areas that they should look for, but is by no means complete. Reviewers should use their own good judgement when reviewing packages. The items listed fall into two categories: *SHOULD* and *MUST*.
|
| |
|
| |
- * *MUST*: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint[Packaging Guidelines: Use rpmlint]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: The package must be named according to the link:Packaging/NamingGuidelines[ Package Naming Guidelines] . +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: The spec file name must match the base package `+%{name}+`, in the format `+%{name}.spec+` unless your package has an exemption. footnote:[link:Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name[ Naming Guidelines: Spec File Naming]] . +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: The package must meet the link:Packaging/Guidelines[ Packaging Guidelines] . +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the link:Packaging/LicensingGuidelines[ Licensing Guidelines] . +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. footnote:[link:Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames[ Licensing Guidelines: Valid License Short Names]] +
|
| |
- * *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 `+%license+`.footnote:[link:Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text[Licensing Guidelines: License Text]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: The spec file must be written in American English. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#summary[Packaging Guidelines: Summary]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: The spec file for the package *MUST* be legible. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#Spec_Legibility[Packaging Guidelines: Spec Legibility]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: 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 link:Packaging/SourceURL[ Source URL Guidelines] for how to deal with this. +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: The package *MUST* successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Support[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture Support]] +
|
| |
- * *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+` *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. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture Build Failures]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: All build dependencies must be listed in `+BuildRequires+`, except for any that are listed in the link:Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2[exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines] ; inclusion of those as `+BuildRequires+` is optional. Apply common sense. +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the `+%find_lang+` macro. Using `+%{_datadir}/locale/*+` is strictly forbidden.footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files[Packaging Guidelines: Handling Locale Files]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.footnote:[Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries[Packaging Guidelines: Duplication of System Libraries]] +
|
| |
- * *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. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#RelocatablePackages[Packaging Guidelines: Relocatable Packages]] +
|
| |
- * *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. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership[Packaging Guidelines: File And Directory Ownership]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: 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)footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles[Packaging Guidelines: Duplicate Files]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions[Packaging Guidelines: File Permissions]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: Each package must consistently use macros. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#macros[Packaging Guidelines: Macros]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: The package must contain code, or permissible content. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent[Packaging Guidelines: Code Vs. Content]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: 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). footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation[Packaging Guidelines: Package Documentation]] +
|
| |
- * *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. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation[Packaging Guidelines: Package Documentation]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: Static libraries must be in a -static package. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries[Packaging Guidelines: Packaging Static Libraries]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: Development files must be in a -devel package. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages[Packaging Guidelines: Devel Packages]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: `+Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}+` footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage[Packaging Guidelines: Requiring Base Package]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries[Packaging Guidelines: Packaging Static Libraries]] +
|
| |
- * *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. 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. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#desktop[Packaging Guidelines: Desktop files]] +
|
| |
- * *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. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership[Packaging Guidelines: File And Directory Ownership]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#FilenameEncoding[Packaging Guidelines: Filename Encoding]] +
|
| |
- * *MUST*: Packages being added to the distribution MUST NOT depend on any packages which have been marked as being deprecated. footnote:[Packaging:Deprecating_Packages] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_use_rpmlint[Packaging Guidelines: Use rpmlint\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: The package must be named according to the xref:Naming.adoc[Package Naming Guidelines] . +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: The spec file name must match the base package `+%{name}+`, in the format `+%{name}.spec+` unless your package has an exemption. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_spec_file_naming[Packaging Guidelines: Spec File Naming\]] . +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: The package must meet the xref:index.adoc[Packaging Guidelines] . +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the xref:LicensingGuidelines.adoc[Licensing Guidelines] . +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. footnote:[xref:LicensingGuidelines.adoc#_valid_license_short_names[Licensing Guidelines: Valid License Short Names\]] +
|
| |
+ * *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 `+%license+`.footnote:[xref:LicensingGuidelines.adoc#_license_text[Licensing Guidelines: License Text\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: The spec file must be written in American English. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_summary_and_description[Packaging Guidelines: Summary and description\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: The spec file for the package *MUST* be legible. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_spec_legibility[Packaging Guidelines: Spec Legibility\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: 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 xref:SourceURL.adoc[Source URL Guidelines] for how to deal with this. +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: The package *MUST* successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_architecture_support[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture Support\]] +
|
| |
+ * *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+` *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. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_architecture_build_failures[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture Build Failures\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: All build dependencies must be listed in `+BuildRequires+`. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#buildrequires[Packaging Guidelines: Build-Time Dependencies (BuildRequires)\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the `+%find_lang+` macro. Using `+%{_datadir}/locale/*+` is strictly forbidden.footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_handling_locale_files[Packaging Guidelines: Handling Locale Files\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.footnote:[xref:index.adoc#bundling[Packaging Guidelines: Bundling and Duplication of System Libraries\]] +
|
| |
+ * *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. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_relocatable_packages[Packaging Guidelines: Relocatable Packages\]] +
|
| |
+ * *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. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_file_and_directory_ownership[Packaging Guidelines: File And Directory Ownership\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: 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)footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_duplicate_files[Packaging Guidelines: Duplicate Files\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_file_permissions[Packaging Guidelines: File Permissions\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: Each package must consistently use macros. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_macros[Packaging Guidelines: Macros\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: The package must contain code, or permissible content. footnote:[xref:what-can-be-packaged.adoc[What Can Be Packaged\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: 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). footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_documentation[Packaging Guidelines: Documentation\]] +
|
| |
+ * *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. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_documentation[Packaging Guidelines: Documentation\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: Static libraries must be in a -static package. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#packaging-static-libraries[Packaging Guidelines: Packaging Static Libraries\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: Development files must be in a -devel package. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_devel_packages[Packaging Guidelines: Devel Packages\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: `+Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}+` footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_requiring_base_package[Packaging Guidelines: Requiring Base Package\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.footnote:[xref:index.adoc#packaging-static-libraries[Packaging Guidelines: Packaging Static Libraries\]] +
|
| |
+ * *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. 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. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_desktop_files[Packaging Guidelines: Desktop files\]] +
|
| |
+ * *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. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_file_and_directory_ownership[Packaging Guidelines: File and Directory Ownership\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_non_ascii_filenames[Packaging Guidelines: Non-ASCII Filenames\]] +
|
| |
+ * *MUST*: Packages being added to the distribution MUST NOT depend on any packages which have been marked as being deprecated. footnote:[xref:deprecating-packages.adoc[Deprecating Packages\]] +
|
| |
|
| |
- +
|
| |
+ '''
|
| |
|
| |
- +
|
| |
-
|
| |
- * *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. footnote:[link:Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text[Licensing Guidelines: License Text]] +
|
| |
- * *SHOULD*: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#summary[Packaging Guidelines: Summary and description]] +
|
| |
- * *SHOULD*: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. footnote:[link:PackageMaintainers/MockTricks[Mock Tricks]] +
|
| |
- * *SHOULD*: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#ArchitectureSupport[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture Support]] +
|
| |
+ * *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. footnote:[xref:LicensingGuidelines.adoc#_license_text[Licensing Guidelines: License Text\]] +
|
| |
+ * *SHOULD*: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_summary_and_description[Packaging Guidelines: Summary and description\]] +
|
| |
+ * *SHOULD*: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. footnote:[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds[Using Mock to test package builds\]] +
|
| |
+ * *SHOULD*: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. footnote:xref:index.adoc#_architecture_support[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture Support\]] +
|
| |
* *SHOULD*: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. +
|
| |
- * *SHOULD*: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#Scriptlets[Packaging Guidelines: Scriptlets]] +
|
| |
- * *SHOULD*: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage[Packaging Guidelines: Requiring Base Package]] +
|
| |
- * *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. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#PkgconfigFiles[Packaging Guidelines: Pkgconfig Files]] +
|
| |
- * *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. footnote:[link:Packaging/Guidelines#FileDeps[Packaging Guidelines: File Dependencies]] +
|
| |
- * *SHOULD*: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.footnote:[Packaging:Guidelines#Manpages[Packaging Guidelines: Manpages]] +
|
| |
+ * *SHOULD*: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_scriptlets[Packaging Guidelines: Scriptlets\]] +
|
| |
+ * *SHOULD*: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_requiring_base_package[Packaging Guidelines: Requiring Base Package\]] +
|
| |
+ * *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. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_pkgconfig_files_foo_pc[Packaging Guidelines: Pkgconfig Files\]] +
|
| |
+ * *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. footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_file_and_directory_dependencies[Packaging Guidelines: File and Directory Dependencies\]] +
|
| |
+ * *SHOULD*: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.footnote:[xref:index.adoc#_manpages[Packaging Guidelines: Manpages\]] +
|
| |
|
| |
== A note on dependencies
|
| |
|
| |
I noticed a broken link in the guidelines index page, pointing to
RPM_Source_dir.adoc
. While fixing this I ran across the minor warning when building the via antora. After I was a little familiar with the process, I used the linkchecker command to locate other broken links. There were a good number of them, which I've attempted to correct in 3d0c608 ("fix broken links", 2019-02-24).Let me know if this should be broken up into smaller chunks or needs further work.