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=809395 --- Comment #3 from Juan Hernández <juan.hernandez@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-03 10:41:48 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Rpmlint output: Output of rpmlint of the source package: $ rpmlint jboss-as-7.1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm jboss-as.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/jbossas HTTP Error 403: Forbidden jboss-as.src: W: strange-permission jboss-as-systemd.sh 0755L jboss-as.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-as-7.1.0.Final-CLEAN.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. The invalid-url warning is usual, but the URL is correct. The strange-permission warning is acceptable. This could be avoided removing the permissions from the source file and adding them in the %install section of the spec using "install -m 755" instead of "cp -p". The invalid-url warning for the source is acceptable, as this is a git checkout. The output of rpmlint of the main binary package is too log, due to warnings mostly, I will include it as attachment to the bug. Here are some relevant errors and warnings: jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jboss-as/domain/data 0775L jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jboss-as/standalone/data 0775L jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jboss-as/domain/tmp 0775L These permissions are necessary because the application server runs as jboss-as:jboss-as and needs to write to those directories but the directories are owned by root:jboss-as. jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jboss-as/auth 0700L This directory is owned by jboss-as:jboss-as and I guess that it stores credentials here, thus the restrictive permission. jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/jboss-as/standalone 0770L jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/jboss-as/domain 0770L These are log directories and they are protected so that normal users can't access them. jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/jboss-as/standalone 0775L jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/jboss-as/domain 0775L These etc directories are owned by root:jboss-as and the application server needs to write there in order to update the configuration files when changes are perfored using the web console or the CLI. jboss-as.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib I don't really understand the reason of this warning. jboss-as.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /usr/share/jboss-as/modules/org/jboss/marshalling/main/module.xml jboss-as Most of the files show this warning (repeated 814 times) because they are owned by the jboss-as group. I think that most of the files can be safely owned by the root group and the warning will go away. jboss-as.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/jboss-as/modules/javax/faces/api/main/jboss-jsf-2.1-api.jar /usr/share/java/jboss-jsf-2.1-api.jar This warning is repeated 102 times, and I hink that they are false positives, maybe a rpmlint issue. I checked them manually and all of them are present and contained in one of the packages required by jboss-as. Output of rpmlint of the javadoc package: $ rpmlint jboss-as-javadoc-7.1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm jboss-as-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados jboss-as-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/jbossas HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. These warnings are acceptable. [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3959116 [x] Buildroot definition is not present [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: LGPLv2 Some of the file state in their header that the license is ASL 2.0. To find them: grep --recursive 'Apache License' * The license type should be "LGPLv2 and ASL 2.0". [x] 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 is included in %doc. [!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own The javadoc subpackage doesn't include a copy of the license. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Checked using a recursive diff of the sources. [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason The package doesn't contain exacltly "%defattr(-,root,root,-)", but it does contain "%defattr(0664,root,jboss-as,0755)". I think that it would be good to be more restrictive and have files owned by root:root where possible. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. See the comments about the rpmlint output above. [x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils [x] Package uses %global not %define [x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) [x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details) [x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap === Maven === [x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms [x] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a comment [-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why it's needed in a comment [x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro === Other suggestions === [x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac) [x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary [x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [!] Latest version is packaged. Latest version is 7.1.1 but, as mentioned in the bug, it would take to long to update the package for that version. I agree is better to proceed with 7.1.0 at the moment. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3959116 === Issues === 1. Most warnings about non standard gid can be avoided changing group ownership of files to root:root, as the only thing the application server needs to do is read them. 2. According to rpmlint there are dangling symlinks, but I think these are false alarms. 3. The javadoc subpackage doesn't include a copy of the license. 4. The license type should be "LGPLv2 and ASL 2.0". 5. There is a newer version, but I think this shouldn't block the package. === Final Notes === 1. The rpmlint warning about the permissions of jboss-systemd.sh can be avoided removing the execution permission from the source and adding it the %install section of the spec using "install -m 755" instead of "cp -p". 2. The %install section uses a combination of "cp -a" and "install -m". It would be nice to be consistent and use "install -m" where possible, being explicit with the permissions instead of trusting the source/built files. Issues #2 and #3 need to be fixed. Before approving I would like to get more opinions about ownership of the files and dangling symlinks. -- 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