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=226209 --- Comment #4 from Vitezslav Crhonek <vcrhonek@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-23 09:12:01 EST --- OK source files match upstream: $ sha256sum nut-2.6.0.tar.gz* febaa230b6b5f0ad27d780851047527d36c8c7a34e557b3832d6d55174d7a0d5 nut-2.6.0.tar.gz febaa230b6b5f0ad27d780851047527d36c8c7a34e557b3832d6d55174d7a0d5 nut-2.6.0.tar.gz.orig OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. The spec file look fine, just two comments: - Please use %global instead of %define, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define - Buildroot tag is no longer required, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag OK dist tag is present. BAD license field matches the actual license. Only GPLv2+ is in the spec file, but the nut-client subpackage holds GPLv3+ files also. I think nut-client should have own license field with dual licensing scenario, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines BAD license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. License texts are not included, but are not included in upstream tarball too (although both are mentioned in COPYING - LICENSE-GPL2, LICENSE.GPL3). It would be nice to point upstream to ship them. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/i686). OK debuginfo package looks complete. BAD rpmlint is silent. $ rpmlint nut.spec nut.spec:177: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} nut.spec:177: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir} nut.spec:195: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} nut.spec:320: E: files-attr-not-set 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Warnings are OK, error on line 320 can be easily fixed by moving %doc COPYING line after %defattr(-,root,root) line. $ rpmlint nut-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm nut.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nut-2.6.0/docs/website/css/ie-overrides.css nut.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nut-2.6.0/docs/nut-qa.txt nut.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/nut.conf 0640L nut.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upsd.users 0640L nut.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nut-2.6.0/docs/website/scripts/filter_png.js nut.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/ups.conf 0640L nut.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upsd.conf 0640L nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blazer_usb nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary upslog nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary newmge-shut nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary skel nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clone-outlet nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blazer_ser 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 9 warnings. Some manual pages missing (please check it, probably minor utilities, where man page is not needed), some non-readable files for everybody (if it's expected, it should be possible to add these files to the exception list), some files with CRLF line terminators (should be fixed). $ rpmlint nut-client-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm nut-client.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libupsclient.so.1.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx nut-client.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upssched.conf 0640L nut-client.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/ups 0750L nut-client.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upsmon.conf 0640L nut-client.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/PyNUT.py 0644L /usr/bin/env nut-client.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary upssched-cmd nut-client.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nut-monitor nut-client.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post install nut-client.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm nut-client.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name ups ('nut-client', 'nut-clientd') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 6 warnings. Same as above, plus directory and script permission - please take a look if it's correct (directory permission is probably desired - this permission is set in the spec file, I'm not sure about python script). $ rpmlint nut-cgi-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm nut-cgi.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upsset.conf 0600L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint nut-hal-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint nut-devel-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm nut-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on nut/nut-libs/libnut 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint nut-xml-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm nut-xml.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netxml -> netball, nettle, nether 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Almost OK:) OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths with proper scriptlets OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. Except rpmlint warning. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. There's quite a lot of documentation, maybe it's worth of subpackage? What do you think? OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in -devel OK pkgconfig files in -devel OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. OK obsoletes and provides of the obsoleted package are valid -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review