Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459535 Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #21 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-11 11:53:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) > I don't want to pollute this bug with justifications, so I'm not going to go > into further details. Me ether, nevertheless I'd like you to read my review and ask yourself if the package really was ready for approval. No need to answer here, just think about it. > The fact that the static pages were > officially added only recently does not change the fact that we never found a > way to cope efficiently with the amount of submissions. The static pages were not added recently but after we switched to reviews with flags because searching for flags in bugzilla is not trivial. Please ask Christian Iseli if you don't believe me. > > Can you sponsor Guillaume afterwards? > > Sure. Thanks, so I'm removing the blocker on bug # 177841 now. REVIEW FOR ab3594db4b6b5fe1740b606ad06d41cd backup-manager-0.7.7-4.fc10.src.rpm OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/backup-manager-0.7.7-4.fc11.* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2+) and meets the Licensing Guidelines. OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible. OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by MD5 076af845dee01453f450bd06d021fcc3 OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i386 N/A - 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. FIX - MUST: Not all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires: The package runs pod2man to localize the manpages. pod2man is provided by the perl package, which is pulled in automatically, but should be listed explicitly because it is not in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro. N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A - 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. OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates. OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. The %files section includes a %defattr(...) line. OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package contains code, no content. N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A - 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. N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - 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. OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. N/A - 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. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: The the package builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described. N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - 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. N/A - 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. Issues: - Paths for %{_bindir}, %{_datadir} and %{_localstatedir} are hardcoded in backup-manager and in contrib/sanitize.dh. This surely is a blocker! - Fix BuildRequires (see above) - Fix Requires: We need to at least require the commands from the default backup-manager.conf and most of the stuff from the "external commands" section in the backup-manager: -- tar, gzip, bzip2, bc -- /usr/bin/md5sum, /bin/nice, /usr/bin/tail (these 3 are in coreutils, so I recommend to require the package instead of the file names) -- /usr/bin/logger (util-linux-ng), /usr/bin/gpg (gnupg) -- /usr/bin/mkisofs, /usr/bin/cdrecord, /usr/bin/growisofs (dvd+rw-tools) and /usr/bin/dvd+rw-format (dvd+rw-tools) - Optional requirements (I'll leave these up to you) -- zip, lzma and dar -- /usr/bin/scp (openssh-clients), /usr/bin/ssh (openssh-clients) and /usr/bin/ftp (ftp) for upload-methods.sh, maybe also rsync -- /usr/bin/diff (diffutils), /usr/bin/less (less) and usr/bin/sed (sed) for upgrade-conffile.sh -- /usr/bin/svnadmin (subversion) and /usr/bin/mysqldump (mysql) - backup-manager requires both /bin/bash and /bin/sh, but /bin/bash is a superset of /bin/sh. Is this intended or are the scripts not constant in using either one or the other? - the package requires perl(BackupManager::Config), perl(BackupManager::Dialog) and perl(BackupManager::Logger). but it also provides them. They should be filtered out as described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Filtering_Requires:_and_Provides - /var/lib/backup-manager is referenced in /etc/backup-manager.conf, but nether created nor owned by backup-manager - minor: Typo in latest changelog entry: "licence" instead of "license" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review