https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |misc@xxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |misc@xxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> --- Hi, I have a few comments : - this Requires seems uneeded : Requires(post): systemd-sysv Afaik, the %post do not seems to use this. - there is lots of thing that would be removed for a non epel rpm, like %defattr, %clean, etc, since the package only ship systemd file, I think this is better to remove old stuff : BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install and %clean - I would also recommend the macro for systemd %post/%postun - using a joker could help for futureproofing ( if the manpage compression is changed ) : %{_mandir}/man8/babeld.8.gz - policy recommend to use %global instead of %define - it would also be more consistent to alway use %name ( sometime, there is %name.service, sometimes babeld.service ) Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/850789-babeld/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5 [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define _hardened_build 1 ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Issues: ======= [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 See: None [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Requires(post) systemd-sysv [!]: Package consistently uses macro Rpmlint ------- Checking: babeld-1.3.4-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm babeld-1.3.4-1.fc17.src.rpm babeld-debuginfo-1.3.4-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm babeld.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hoc -> ho, choc, hock babeld.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib babeld.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hoc -> ho, choc, hock 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- babeld-1.3.4-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(babeld) = 1.3.4-1.fc17 libc.so.6()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd-sysv systemd-units babeld-debuginfo-1.3.4-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- babeld-1.3.4-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: babeld = 1.3.4-1.fc17 babeld(x86-64) = 1.3.4-1.fc17 config(babeld) = 1.3.4-1.fc17 babeld-debuginfo-1.3.4-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: babeld-debuginfo = 1.3.4-1.fc17 babeld-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.3.4-1.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~jch/software/files/babeld-1.3.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 818cf9e8e4f7ee297a34190a2179bae9aa4c704791739699c1e1496ad02354df CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 818cf9e8e4f7ee297a34190a2179bae9aa4c704791739699c1e1496ad02354df Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (a5c4ced) last change: 2012-07-22 Command line :./try-fedora-review -v -b 850789 External plugins: -- 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