[Bug 661272] Review Request: lorax - tool for creating anaconda install images

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=661272

--- Comment #1 from Chris Lumens <clumens@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-16 15:59:43 EST ---
One quick note first:  It looks like you forgot to package the
lorax/src/bin/lorax script.  This is likely because it's commented out in
lorax/setup.py, and then you'll also need to add a blurb to the .spec file too.

Mandatory review guidelines:
!! - rpmlint output
     lorax.src: W: invalid-url Source0: lorax-0.1.tar.bz2
     1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ok - Package meets naming guidelines
ok - Spec file name matches base package name
ok - License is acceptable (GPLv2+)
ok - License field in spec is correct
!! - License files included in package %docs or not included in upstream source
     Please include the COPYING file (and preferably the other
documentation-type files in the top level of the source) in the package.  You
do this with "%doc COPYING AUTHORS ...".
na - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed
ok - Spec written in American English
ok - Spec is legible
ok - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
!! - Build succeeds on at least one supported platform
     The build succeeds, but this should be a noarch package (BuildArch:
noarch).  That would also get rid of the useless -debuginfo package.
ok - Build succeeds on all supported platforms or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed
no - BuildRequires correct
     You need to BuildRequires: python{2,3}-devel as appropriate for the
system.
ok - Package handles locales with %find_lang
     This is fine for now since lorax does not yet have translated strings.
na - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files
na - No bundled system libs
na - Relocatability is justified
ok - Package owns all directories it creates
na - Package requires other packages for directories it uses but does not own
ok - No duplicate files in %files unless necessary for license files
ok - File permissions are sane
ok - Each %files section contains %defattr
ok - Consistent use of macros
ok - Sources contain only permissible code or content
na - Large documentation files go in -doc package
na - Missing %doc files do not affect runtime
na - Headers go in -devel package
na - Static libs go in -static package
na - Unversioned .so files go in -devel package
na - Devel packages require base with fully-versioned dependency
na - Package contains no .la files
na - GUI app installs .desktop file w/desktop-file-install or has justification
ok - Package's files and directories don't conflict with others' or justified
ok - File names are valid UTF-8

Optional review guidelines:
na - Query upstream about including license files
na - Translations of description, Summary
ok - Builds in mock
ok - Builds on all supported platforms
ok - Functions as described
na - Scriptlets are sane
na - Non-devel subpackage Requires are sane
na - .pc files go in -devel unless main package is a development tool
ok - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin
no - Man pages included for all executables
     Once you have the /usr/sbin/lorax program in the package, it would be nice
(but not required) to also have a man page.

Packaging guidelines:
ok - Has dist tag
ok - Useful without external bits
ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target
ok - Changelog in prescribed format
ok - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags
no - Correct BuildRoot tag on < F10/EL6
     You don't need BuildRoot anymore.
no - Correct %clean section on < F13/EL6
     You don't need a %clean section anymore.
!! - Requires correct, justified where necessary
     Please audit the commands you call out to and verify that the packages
containing those programs are listed as Requires.
ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly
no - All relevant documentation is packaged, tagged appropriately
     See above.
na - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise
na - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6
no - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified
     See above.
na - No static executables
na - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs
no - Config files marked with %config
     %{_sysconfdir}/lorax/lorax.conf should be marked as a config file to avoid
it being overwritten on upgrade.
no - %config files marked noreplace or justified
     See above.
!! - No %config files under /usr
     Should /usr/share/lorax/ramdisk.ltmpl be installed into /etc/lorax
instead?  Is it expected to be modified by the user?
na  - SysV-style init script
ok - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names
ok - %makeinstall used only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't work
na - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time
ok - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{sourcedir}
na - %global instead of %define where appropriate
na - Package containing translations BuildRequires gettext
na - File timestamps preserved by file ops
na - Parallel make
ok - Spec does not use Requires(pre,post) notation
na - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups)
na - Web app files go in /usr/share/%{name}, not /var/www
na - Conflicts are justified
ok - No external kernel modules
ok - No files in /srv
ok - One project per package
na - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified

Python Guidelines:
!! - Runtime Requires correct
     See above.
ok - Python macros declared on < F13/EL6
ok - All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts
ok - Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated
ok - Provides/Requires properly filtered
na - Code that invokes gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array() Requires numpy

-- 
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


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]