https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 --- Comment #4 from Ricardo Rocha <rocha.porto@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi. Thanks for the review, spec and srpm updated: https://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-contrib-admintools.spec https://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-2.src.rpm Koji builds (success): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4128602 (rawhide) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4128606 (5E) Details inline below. > [OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the > build produces. The output should be posted in the review. > > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary > dpm-sql-spacetoken-list-files > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-disk-to-dpns > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary > dpns-usage-by-vouser > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-delreplica > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary > dpm-sql-dpns-by-replication > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary > dpm-sql-spacetoken-replicate-hotfiles > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary > dpm-sql-spacetoken-usage > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary > dpm-sql-diskfs-to-dpns-chk > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-du > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-list-disk > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary > dpm-sql-usage-by-vo-user > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary > dpm-sql-list-hotfiles > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary adler32sum > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-find > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-pfn-to-dpns > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary > dpm-sql-files-by-vo-user > dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary > dpm-sql-dpns-to-diskfs-chk > dpm-contrib-admintools.src: W: invalid-url Source0: > dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0.tar.gz > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings. > > -> minors warnings > > > [OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming > Guidelines . > [OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the > format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. > [FAIL] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . > > -> Missing %{?_isa} macro on python-dpm and MySQL-python > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires > > -> make is not executed properly, compilation is done by "make > install" in the install section Both fixed. > -> -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/ is an override of the %cmake macro, this is > not recommended. The build is requiring this, there are many other components following this. If it's ok with you i'll leave it like this for now. > > [OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and > meet the Licensing Guidelines . > [OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > [N/A] 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. > [OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. > [OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. > [OK] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream > source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this > task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the > Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. > [OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms > on at least one primary architecture. > [N/A] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed > in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not > compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a > comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. > [OK] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except > for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging > Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common > sense. > [OK] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using > the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. > [N/A] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared > library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default > paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. > [OK] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. > [OK] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must > state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization > for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr > is considered a blocker. > [OK] 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. > [OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec > file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific > situations) > [OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be > set with executable permissions, for example. > [OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. > [OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. > [OK] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The > definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not > restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). > [OK] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the > runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must > run properly if it is not present. > [N/A] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. > [N/A] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > [N/A] 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. > [N/A] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the > base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = > %{version}-%{release} > [N/A] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must > be removed in the spec if they are built. > [N/A] 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. If you feel that your packaged > GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the > spec file with your explanation. > [OK] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed > should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This > means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership > with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. > If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that > another package owns, then please present that at package review time. > [OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > > > [OK] 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. > [OK] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file > should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if > available. > [OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [OK] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all > supported architectures. > [OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as > described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. > [N/A] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is > vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. > [N/A] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency. > [N/A] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their > usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed > in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a > devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. > [OK] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, > /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides > the file instead of the file itself. > [FAIL] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. > If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. > > > -> Create and include man pages if possible As mentioned above i've added the request upstream: https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/lcgdm/ticket/524 and it will come in a later release. Thanks again, Ricardo(In reply to comment #3) -- 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