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=749232 --- Comment #6 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2011-11-16 15:36:17 EST --- Review of nagios-plugins-lcgdm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749232 Builds okay in Fedora 16 x86_64 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. $ rpmlint ./nagios-plugins-lcgdm.spec ./nagios-plugins-lcgdm.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: nagios-plugins-lcgdm-0.4.0.tar.gz which is expected. $ rpmlint ./nagios-plugins-* nagios-plugins-dpm-disk.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nagios-plugins-dpm-head.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nagios-plugins-lcgdm.x86_64: E: no-binary nagios-plugins-lcgdm.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nagios-plugins-lcgdm-common.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nagios-plugins-lfc.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Odd but it's a nagios plugin and that that has noconcept of a noarch path in typical configuration so okay. nagios-plugins-dpm-disk.x86_64: W: no-documentation nagios-plugins-dpm-head.x86_64: W: no-documentation Okay nagios-plugins-lfc.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Based on other nagios plugins so fine. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. ASL 2.0 [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Source code is clearly licensed as ASL2.0 [+] MUST: 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. LICENSE file present. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Sources match: diff -r --brief nagios-plugins-lcgdm-0.4.0 ../SPECS/nagios-plugins-lcgdm-0.4.0/ [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. mock and koji okay. [+] 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. builds in koji. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires Builds in mock. [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. No locales. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. No shared libs. [+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review Not relocatable. [=] MUST: 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. /etc/nagios.d is now owned or required but see below. Also you should probably own. /usr/share/pnp4nagios /usr/share/pnp4nagios/lcgdm-templates [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. No headers. [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. No statics. [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). None present. [+] 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. No libs. [] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} No devels. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. Nope. [+] 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. No guis. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [+] 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. [+] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. They don't but up to you, you support another language. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. It does. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. See koji builds [notchecked] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. Why is this a SHOULD? [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. No devel packages. Comments: 1) The layout of files between packages does not make sense to me. e.g. nagios-plugins-lcgdm-0.4.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm contains /usr/share/pnp4nagios/lcgdm-templates/check_dpm_perf.php and all the php4nagios files but nagios-plugins-dpm-head-0.4.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm contains /usr/lib64/nagios/plugins/lcgdm/check_dpm_perf there should be some correlation between files for the same probe or alternativley probes in one and php4nagios files in another though the first is a better option. 2) You have %define debug_package %{nil} this must be justified with a comment or removed. 3) I don't understand the /etc/nagios.d directory at least on Centos6 where I am looking nagios does not contain this directory, is this something you are introducing? I presume these are probe configuration files. 4) arch vs noarch, I appreciate the problem that the path is architecture dependent when it comes to nagios locations reguardless of the file contents. If after reording the files between packages you end up with out a non-architecture path then that sub package can be marked noarch except for on .el5. Someone really should tackle this in a future nagios version but not your problem for now. 5) Adding nagios-common and nagios-plugins is probably fine. I think neither of these actually require nagios which is worth leaving behind. 6) As long as LICENSE is pulled in by every package that can be installed in isolation to the others you are fine, more over you should not supply it elsewhere. -- 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