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=612581 --- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-05 09:05:15 EDT --- NEEDSWORK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. I am not going to post whole rpmlint output because it's huge with lot of repeated stuff. spacewalk-backend.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.29-2 ['1.1.29-22.fc13', '1.1.29-22'] This can be fixed easily.... Several: spacewalk-backend.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/spacewalk-cfg-get.8.gz 1: warning: `\"' not defined Not sure how to fix that, but it would be good to actually do it. spacewalk-backend-server.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre install spacewalk-backend-server.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm This is new package, there is no need to do migrate secret key. Please try to get rid of those pre/post install/rm commands. Whole %pre section seems not needed, and also those remove commands on rhnSecret.py If you really have to keep them in, at least put them in ifdefs so that problematic parts won't be run on Fedoras. spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary update-packages spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spacewalk-repo-sync spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rhn-entitlement-report spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spacewalk-update-signatures Contact upstream (should be pretty easy :-) ) and provide man pages for these binaries. OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. . OK (problems explained): The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK: 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. OK: All independent sub-packages have License of their own (if it exists) OK: The spec file must be written in American English. OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. NEEDSWORK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. -libs sub-package has BR on python-devel. Better use python2-devel Also use proper macros to define python_sitearch on F12/RHEL-5 Requires: /etc/rhn doesn't seem to work for me: repoquery --enablerepo=rawhide --whatprovides /etc/rhn returns nothing and none of rpms generated by this SRPM provides this directory either. Perhaps I am completely wrong, so please explain. I also don't think Requires(pre) does what you think it does. Usually Requires(pre) is accompanied with Requires:. When you have "Requires(pre): httpd" it means that you need to have httpd during installation phase and its transaction before spacewalk-backend. However by using (pre), you are saying you don't need this package to actually work/run. That means httpd package could be uninstalled after installing spacewalk and no dependency would prevent this. Solution: add also "Requires: httpd", leaving "Requires(pre): httpd" as is. You have several R(pre) uses in the spec file so re-check all of them. OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK: 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. OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK: Each package must consistently use macros. OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. NA: 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). NA: 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. OK: Header files must be in a -devel package. NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package. NA: 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. NA: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} NA: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. NA: 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. OK (commented): Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Other: * use %global instead of %define (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define) * instead of %{_prefix}/share/rhn use %{_datadir}/rhn * to call python use %{__python} macro (in %post server, in case you won't remove it) * I guess this was supposed to be replaced? "XXX To be determined if the proper location is under backend" * Upstream provides one tarball, yet this spec file has 18 sub-packages. Wouldn't it be easier to just create one monolithic package? Or get upstream to split releases into smaller tarballs and create small package for each. I might have more comments later because the spec file is quite big so it's easy to miss things. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review