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=769919 --- Comment #23 from Michal Ambroz <rebus@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-17 20:46:24 EDT --- Hello, unfortunately I am not sponsor so I can provide only with the informal non-authoritative review. Package Review ============== Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 + manual review Key: - = N/A x = Pass (by automated check) X = Pass (manual check) ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated / Needs attention ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [X]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [X]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [X]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [X]: MUST Package is not relocatable. ==== Generic ==== [X?]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - package released under GPLv3+ with exemption allowing linking with openssl - contains GPLv2+ code and publi domain code - exceptions were sufficient for the license to be accepted to Debian - I would recommend to cross check with Tom 'spot' Callaway [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. - koji build is referenced in the review request - I have successfully re-build package for Fedora 17 [X]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. - Makefile.am is patched to include CFLAGS in OPTS, OPTS are used in Makefile then [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. - package doesn't contain bundled libraries, but it contains header files from PostgreSQL - I would recommend to patch to use the header files from the installed postgresql-devel package - similar patch is contained in debian http://packages.debian.org/source/testing/hydra [X]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [X]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [X]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [X]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop- file-install file if it is a GUI application. [X]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [X]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [!]: 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 is included in %doc. - file LICENSE.OPENSSL is missing in the doc [X]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [X]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [X]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [X]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [X]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. - directory /usr/share/hydra should be owned with the %dir directive [X]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [X]: MUST Package installs properly. [-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [X?]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. - please notify the upstream about the incorrect fsf addreass - other than that i believe it is good rpmlint hydra-debuginfo-7.2-7.fc17.x86_64.rpm hydra-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/hydra-7.2-src/hmacmd5.h hydra-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/hydra-7.2-src/hmacmd5.c 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint hydra-frontend-7.2-7.fc17.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint hydra-7.2-7.fc17.src.rpm hydra.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelized -> paralleled, palatalized, pluralized 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint hydra-7.2-7.fc17.x86_64.rpm hydra.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelized -> paralleled, palatalized, pluralized hydra.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpl4hydra.sh 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/mambroz/tmp/hydra/769919/hydra-7.2-src.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 7a72f2d4dd8a771a4935072f80e336dd MD5SUM upstream package : 7a72f2d4dd8a771a4935072f80e336dd [X]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [X]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [X]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [X]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [X]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [X]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [X?]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source1: xhydra.desktop (xhydra.desktop) Patch1: hydra-fix-mysql- support.patch (hydra-fix-mysql-support.patch ) Patch2: hydra-fix-format- extra-args.patch (hydra-fix-format-extra-args.patch ) Patch3: hydra-7.2-destdir.patch (hydra-7.2-destdir.patch) - xhydra.desktop was flagged by automated check, but I believe the name is acceptable - I believe that hydra.desktop for the commandline util will be provided by security-menus [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [X]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [X?]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. - install in the spec file respects timestamps - install in the Makefile does not - I would recommend to patch it and report to upstream [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Summary: - Generally I would say the package is good and ready to be accepted. There are only minor easy-to fix glitches - Please fix these issues: - use postgres header files from the installed postgresql-devel package - add dir of /usr/share/hydra - include LICENSE.OPENSSL as doc - please inform the upstream about the wrong address of FSF in hmacmd5 files -- 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