[Bug 851279] Review Request: eucalyptus - Elastic Utility Computing Architecture

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851279

Garrett Holmstrom <gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #22 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Thanks for slogging through all that, Andy.  There's little left to go, as far
as I can tell, though of course someone else could always chime in.

=== List of issues ===

Please filter out Provides for internal libraries.  These include:
     libEucalyptusCC.so()(64bit)
     libEucalyptusGL.so()(64bit)
     libEucalyptusNC.so()(64bit)
     liblvm2control.so()(64bit)

rpmlint found some filesystem permission issues.  The latter is due to +x.
     E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/eucalyptus/shutdownCC 0555L
     E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/eucalyptus/floppy

=== Other commentary ===

You don't need to %doc the INSTALL file.

Are you sure you need to run euca_conf in %post?  You already write that info
to eucalyptus.conf with sed during %install.

rpmlint complained about missing logrotate configs.  Does eucalyptus rotate all
of its logs or would it benefit from logrotate's picking up any stragglers?

I suggest double-checking the license header with spot, but I'm not going to
hold the review up for that.  It already has my best guess.

=== Review of eucalyptus-3.1.2-0.3.20120917gitb8c109b4 ===

Mandatory review guidelines:
NO - rpmlint output (attached)
     13 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 22 errors, 239 warnings.

     Most of the issues are bogus or previously-addressed.  The rest appear
     above.

ok - License is acceptable (GPLv3, LGPLv2+, ASL 2.0, BSD, Public Domain)
ok - License field in spec is correct
     It might be worth double-checking with spot to ensure this is correct.
ok - License files included in package %docs if included in source package
ok - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed
     Upstream does not include license files for the BSD sub-packages
ok - Spec written in American English
ok - Spec is legible
-- - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
     Built directly from upstream git
ok - Build succeeds on at least one primary arch
ok - Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed
ok - BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary
-- - Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/*
-- - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files
ok - No bundled libs
-- - Relocatability is justified
ok - Package owns all directories it creates
ok - Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own
ok - No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files
NO - File permissions are sane
     -rwxr-xr-x root root /usr/share/eucalyptus/floppy
     -r-xr-xr-x root root /usr/libexec/eucalyptus/shutdownCC
ok - Package contains permissible code or content
ok - Large docs go in -doc subpackage
ok - %doc files not required at runtime
-- - Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides
-- - Development files go in -devel package
-- - -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa
ok - No .la files
-- - GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install
ok - File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification
ok - File names are valid UTF-8

Optional review guidelines:
ok - Query upstream about including license files
-- - Translations of description, summary
ok - Builds in mock
no - Builds on all arches
     (Standard no-java-on-ppc disclaimer)
ok - Scriptlets are sane
ok - Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible
-- - .pc file subpackage placement is sensible
ok - No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin
ok - Include man pages if available

Naming guidelines:
ok - Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+
ok - Package names are sane
ok - No naming conflicts
ok - Spec file name matches base package name
ok - Version is sane
ok - Version does not contain ~
ok - Release is sane
ok - %dist tag
ok - Case used only when necessary
-- - Renaming handled correctly

Packaging guidelines:
ok - Useful without external bits
ok - No kmods
ok - Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep
ok - Sources contain only redistributable code or content
ok - Spec format is sane
ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target
ok - No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17
-- - Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run
-- - Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17
ok - No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local
ok - Changelog in prescribed format
ok - No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags
ok - Summary does not end in a period
-- - Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6
-- - Correct %clean section on < EL6
ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary
ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly
ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc
ok - Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x)
ok - Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc
ok - Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise
ok - PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs
ok - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified
-- - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6
ok - No static executables
ok - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs
ok - Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config
ok - No config files under /usr
-- - Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir
-- - .desktop files are sane
ok - Spec uses macros consistently
ok - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate
ok - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed
-- - %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work
-- - Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time
ok - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir
ok - No software collections (scl)
-- - Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name
ok - Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs
ok - %global, not %define
-- - Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it
-- - Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel
ok - File ops preserve timestamps
no - Parallel make
     Justified in spec
ok - No Requires(pre,post) notation
ok - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups)
     Note that the packaging guidelines require shadow-utils, not paths.
ok - Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www
-- - Conflicts are justified
ok - One project per package
ok - No bundled fonts
ok - Patches have appropriate commentary
-- - Available test suites executed in %check
ok - tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15

Systemd guidelines:
ok - Traditional service uses a unit file
ok - Non-standard service commands converted to standalone scripts
ok - Unit names are sane
ok - Description= lines do not exceed 80 characters
-- - Documentation field has correct URI format
ok - Service Types= are correct
ok - Requires=, Wants= used only when necessary
ok - Units do not refer to runlevel*.target
ok - Symlinks used instead of Name=
ok - StandardOutput=, StandardError= used only when necessary
-- - Socket-activated service has FESCo approval, correct unit files
ok - Unit files go in %_unitdir
ok - BuildRequires: systemd-units for %_unitdir macro
ok - Packaged unit files are not %config files
ok - Unit file scriptlets are correct

Java guidelines:
-- - Javadocs go in javadoc subpackage
ok - Prefer split JARs over monolithic
ok - JAR file names correct
ok - JAR files go in %{_javadir} or %{_javadir}-$version
ok - Multiple JAR files go in a %{name} subdirectory
-- - Javadocs go in unversioned %{_javadocdir}/%{name}
-- - javadoc subpackage is noarch on > EL5
ok - BuildRequires java-devel, jpackage-utils
ok - Requires java, jpackage-utils
ok - Dependencies on java/java-devel >= 1.6.0 add epoch 1
-- - Package requiring maven2 Requires jpackage-utils for post and postun
-- - Package requiring maven contains correct maven-specific code in spec
-- - Wrapper script in %{_bindir}
-- - GCJ AOT bits follow GCJ guidelines
ok - No devel package
-- - pom.xml files, if any, installed with %add_maven_depmap
ok - JNI shared objects, JARs that require them go in %{_libdir}/%{name}
ok - Calls to System.loadLibrary replaced w/ System.load w/ full .so path
ok - Bundled JAR files not included or used for build
ok - No Javadoc %post/%ghost
ok - No class-path elements in JAR manifests

Perl guidelines:
ok - Module requirements use virtual perl(modname) syntax
ok - Spec BuildRequires correct core modules, not perl-devel
-- - Spec contains correct MODULE_COMPAT Requires
ok - Requires/Provides are sane
-- - CPAN URL tag is not versioned
-- - All tests enabled where possible
-- - Use Build.PL if present unless justified otherwise
-- - .h files not split into -devel package

Python guidelines:
ok - Runtime Requires correct
-- - Python macros declared on < EL6
ok - All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts
-- - Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated
ok - Provides/Requires properly filtered
-- - Code that invokes gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array() Requires numpy

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]