Diretrizes para revisão de pacotes

Este é um conjunto de diretrizes para Revisões de Pacotes. Observe que uma lista completa de itens a serem verificados seria impossível, mas todos os esforços foram feitos para tornar este documento o mais abrangente possível. Revisores e colaboradores (empacotadores) devem usar seu melhor julgamento sempre que os itens não estiverem claros e, em caso de dúvida, pergunte sobre o lista de empacotamento do Fedora .

Processo de revisão de pacotes

Contributors and reviewers MUST follow the Package Review Process, with the following exceptions:

  • FPC concede isenção explícita do processo, conforme indicado aqui.

  • O pacote está sendo criado para que várias versões do mesmo pacote possam coexistir na distribuição (ou coexistir entre EPEL e RHEL). O pacote DEVE ser nomeado apropriadamente de acordo com o diretrizes de nomenclatura e NÃO DEVE entrar em conflito com todas as outras versões do mesmo pacote.

  • O pacote existe no Fedora e no RHEL, mas o empacotador deseja enviá-lo em EPEL com um nome alternativo (conforme exigido pela política de EPEL) para fornecer um subpacote que existe no Fedora, mas não existe (ou não é fornecido) no RHEL.

Coisas para verificar na revisão

Há muitas coisas a verificar para uma revisão. Esta lista é fornecida para ajudar os novos revisores a identificar as áreas que eles devem procurar, mas não está completa. Os revisores devem usar seu próprio bom senso ao revisar os pacotes. Os itens listados se enquadram em duas categorias: DEVERIA e OBRIGATÓRIO.


  • 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:[Licensing Guidelines: License Text]

  • SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. footnote:[Using Mock to test package builds]

  • SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. footnote:[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:[Packaging Guidelines: Scriptlets]

  • SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. footnote:[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:[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:[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:[Packaging Guidelines: Manpages]

A note on dependencies

It is often useful to submit a package for review along with its dependencies in separate tickets. As long as the submitter sets up the Depends on: and Blocks: fields in bugzilla properly, this is not an issue, and it is perfectly possible to review these packages before the full dependency chain is in the distribution (by maintaining a local repository, building and installing the packages locally, or maintaining a Copr).

However, please keep in mind that you cannot do koji builds if all of the build dependencies are not met (because you cannot provide additional dependencies to koji) and when the time comes to build these packages, they must be built in order and you must wait between builds for the dependencies to make it into the appropriate branch of the distribution. This can be automated using side tags and chain builds.

Please also note that while you may actually be able to build a package because all of its build-time dependencies are met, the package may still be non-installable (and thus useless) if its runtime dependencies are not met. A package MUST not be built if any of its runtime dependencies are unsatisfied.

References to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines