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=693425 --- Comment #43 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-26 08:13:26 EDT --- Easter holiday is over, here we go! First, a server review: The submission is not complete: there should be a source RPM which is missing. The source URL in the spec file seems to be invalid. This review is based on the previous submitted sources + the updated spec file. Please submit source rpm + spec file urls next time. MUST - rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms... NOK + Only 2 packages are checked, should be 4 (2 srpms + 2 noarch rpms) + The "Non standard uid/gid" warnings can be ignored. + The warning on URL http://www.openerp.com/ seems to be a temporary server problem. + The error on zero-length file (.../office.dtd): Is this file required? + Fedora init scripts does normally not enable services by default. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#.23_chkconfig:_line + The changelog version should be fixed. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Changelogs - The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.... NOK + The spec file should be named openerp-server.spec; see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. TBD + The dependency list looks incomplete. Samples like user_ldap indicates that some module dependencies are missing. Also, there are references to pytz and matplotlib, but these are not required. Datetutil is used (imported), no dependency on python-dateutil. Some deps listed in setup.py seems not to be included. An overall review of the dependencies is needed. - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license...: OK - The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license: NOK + No overall copyright clause in README or separate copyright file, acceptable but "odd". + License: field is AGPLv3 + ./bin/addons/document_ftp/ftpserver is MIT, part of bundled pyftpdlib. + ./build/lib/openerp-server/addons/wiki/web/widgets/rss/feedparser.py is MIT. + ./bin/addons/resource/faces/* are GPLv2+. + ./build/lib/openerp-server/addons/document/dict_tools.py is LGPL 2.0, (C) by you :) + The thunderbird plugin is "OpenERP Public License" + 'grep -ir license . | grep -v Affero | grep -i "version 2"' lists files which are not AGPLv3, mostly LGPL 2.1+. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines - Separate License file must be in %doc...: OK - The spec file must be written in American English: TBD + Being a Swede, I really don't know. Looks fine to me, though :) - The spec file for the package MUST be legible: OK - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source...TBD No source submitted. - The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms...: TBD No source submitted. - All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires...TBD No source submitted. - The spec file MUST handle locales properly...: OK - Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries: NOK + contains bundled ftpserver (in Fedora: pyftpdlib) + contains bundled rml2pdf (in Fedora: python-trml2pdf) - A package must own all directories that it creates. OK - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %file lists...: OK - Permissions on files must be set properly...: OK - Each package must consistently use macros : NOK + The _iconsdir macro is not used in the server spec file, remove definition. + _initrddir is deprecated, replaced by _initddir; see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript - The package must contain code, or permissable content: OK - %doc must not affect the runtime of the application...: OK - Header files must be in a -devel package OK - Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages...OK - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.: OK SHOULD: - Package built on koji/mock. TBD No source submitted - Testing...TBD - Scriptlets should be sane...: OK OTHER REMARKS: - The for BIN in... loop could be written using 'sed -i' in just one line - Remove setup.cfg together with setup.inf. These files are just not relevant in a Fedora package. - The copyright info in debian/copyright is outdated, SpiffGtkWidtgets is now AGPL, missing licenses. - As for your question: Fedora init scripts just should be 755, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript. - Since you want to retain %clean, you can remove the ifdef's around it. %clean is not required, but certainly allowed. - The %description should expand on the summary. It's now really short, a few sentences about this being part of an ERP application and perhaps an URL would be nice :) -- 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