https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831878 Jiri Popelka <jpopelka@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jpopelka@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Jiri Popelka <jpopelka@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Here's an informal review as I'm not a sponsor. Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ==== 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. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [N/A]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [N/A]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [N/A]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. There are however no license notes in source code. I see you've been the upstream so could you add them ? See the APPENDIX in http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 [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 No %config files under /usr. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. > rpmlint ovirt-log-collector-3.1.0-0.fc18.src.rpm > ovirt-log-collector.src: W: non-standard-group Virtualization/Management > ovirt-log-collector.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://ovirt.org/releases/stable/src/ovirt-log-collector-3.1.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Source doesn't exist. > rpmlint ovirt-log-collector-3.1.0-0.fc18.noarch.rpm > ovirt-log-collector.noarch: W: non-standard-group Virtualization/Management > ovirt-log-collector.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.0-0 ['3.1.0-0.fc18', '3.1.0-0'] Start the release tag from 1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag > ovirt-log-collector.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/engine-log-collector.8.gz 28: name expected (got a special character): treated as missing Not sure what this means, but it's a warning anyway. > ovirt-log-collector.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ovirt-engine/logcollector.conf 0600L Could you change it to 0644 ? > ovirt-log-collector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/ovirt-engine/log-collector/helper/hypervisors.py > ovirt-log-collector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sos/plugins/postgresql.py > ovirt-log-collector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/ovirt-engine/log-collector/helper/__init__.py > ovirt-log-collector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sos/plugins/jboss.py > ovirt-log-collector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sos/plugins/engine.py Either unset executable bits or add shebang. [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. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [N/A]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). Other notes: > %doc %{_mandir}/man8/engine-log-collector.8.gz I can't say the %doc macro is wrong here, but I've never seen it together with %{_mandir} so I'd remove it. > %doc AUTHORS > %doc LICENSE You can put it on one line like: '%doc AUTHORS LICENSE' and %doc is usually the first line in %files. -- 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