https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807810 --- Comment #9 from Jon Stanley <jstanley@xxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== 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. ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST 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 [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [-]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: 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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/jstanley/review/ptpd-phc/licensecheck.txt [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [-]: 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 Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see below). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. NOTE: This is a git checkout - see below for verification [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 systemd file(s) if in need. [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. [x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: 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). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. - The single patch present is for obvious reasons. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [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. [?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. - Tested on x86_64 [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. No tests upstream [ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST 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 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions The package seems slightly schizophrenic in this regard :). I think that it would be useful on EPEL5, but it's half there and half not. It has a %defattr, but no BuildRoot. Pick one or the other (and I'd suggest the EPEL5 compatible one :D) [!]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. This is a daemon, and there's no systemd unit packaged for it. [!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. The changelog lacks versioning info. Also, fix the rpmlint warnings about the non-standard group (I think it's looking for 'System Environment/Daemons' here. I noted a lack of documentation or default config as well, though the help output is relatively sane. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ptpd-phc-debuginfo-2.1.0-0.1.20120921gitecca20.fc16.x86_64.rpm ptpd-phc-2.1.0-0.1.20120921gitecca20.fc16.x86_64.rpm ptpd-phc-2.1.0-0.1.20120921gitecca20.fc16.src.rpm ptpd-phc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ptpd-phc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group System/Daemon ptpd-phc.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ptpd-phc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ptpd2 ptpd-phc.src: W: non-standard-group System/Daemon ptpd-phc.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ptpd-phc.src:26: W: setup-not-quiet ptpd-phc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ptpd-phc-2.1.0.20120921gitecca20.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ptpd-phc ptpd-phc.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US ptpd-phc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group System/Daemon ptpd-phc.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ptpd-phc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ptpd2 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ptpd-phc-debuginfo-2.1.0-0.1.20120921gitecca20.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ptpd-phc-2.1.0-0.1.20120921gitecca20.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ptpd-phc-debuginfo-2.1.0-0.1.20120921gitecca20.fc16.x86_64.rpm: ptpd-phc-debuginfo = 2.1.0-0.1.20120921gitecca20.fc16 ptpd-phc-debuginfo(x86-64) = 2.1.0-0.1.20120921gitecca20.fc16 ptpd-phc-2.1.0-0.1.20120921gitecca20.fc16.x86_64.rpm: ptpd-phc = 2.1.0-0.1.20120921gitecca20.fc16 ptpd-phc(x86-64) = 2.1.0-0.1.20120921gitecca20.fc16 MD5-sum check ------------- $ sha256sum ptpd-phc-2.1.0.20120921gitecca20.tar.gz ../../ptpd-phc-upstream/ptpd-phc-2.1.0.20120921gitecca20.tar.gz 77132a417aaae1030bac09c423e1fdf650a36a7e33671c4eb7aa7de40897bcd3 ptpd-phc-2.1.0.20120921gitecca20.tar.gz 77132a417aaae1030bac09c423e1fdf650a36a7e33671c4eb7aa7de40897bcd3 ../../ptpd-phc-upstream/ptpd-phc-2.1.0.20120921gitecca20.tar.gz Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ptpd-phc 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