https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615 Volker Fröhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> --- == APPROVED == There's room for the same kind of simplification in %postun. As a sidenote: I found Debian requires the netsnmp-perl module. I don't think this is actually necessary. Please notice the comment on the license of sendemail.sh below. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== 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. [-]: %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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required Package is designed to go to EPEL 5 as well [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed Package is designed to go to EPEL 5 as well [-]: 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: 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: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /media/speicher1/makerpm/rpmbuild/SPECS/870615-snmptt/licensecheck.txt That's a single contributed trivial shell script we don't ship. It should probably be clarified nevertheless. [x]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [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. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}_%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) The preferred form would be %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX), but the above is said to be good as well. [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required Package is designed to go to EPEL 5 as well [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. I've got one of the draft packages working. I don't expect any problems to have occured since. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (snmptt_1.4beta2.tgz) [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: snmptt-1.4-0.5.beta2.fc16.noarch.rpm snmptt-1.4-0.5.beta2.fc16.src.rpm snmptt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US snmptrapd -> snapdragon snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/snmpttconvert snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/snmpttconvertmib snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/sbin/snmptthandler snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/sbin/snmptt snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/COPYING snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/spool/snmptt snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/spool/snmptt snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/snmptt snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/snmptt snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmpttconvert snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmptthandler snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmpttconvertmib snmptt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US snmptrapd -> snapdragon 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint snmptt snmptt.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/snmpttconvert snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/snmpttconvertmib snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/sbin/snmptthandler snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/sbin/snmptt snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/COPYING Upstream was informed snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/spool/snmptt snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/spool/snmptt snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/snmptt snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/snmptt snmptt On purpose snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmpttconvert snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmptthandler snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmpttconvertmib Extensive documentation is available on the snmptt website. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 8 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- snmptt-1.4-0.5.beta2.fc16.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl config(snmptt) = 1.4-0.5.beta2.fc16 logrotate net-snmp perl(Config::IniFiles) perl(Cwd) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Spec) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(POSIX) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(Text::Balanced) perl(Text::ParseWords) perl(Time::HiRes) perl(constant) perl(strict) shadow-utils systemd-units Provides -------- snmptt-1.4-0.5.beta2.fc16.noarch.rpm: config(snmptt) = 1.4-0.5.beta2.fc16 snmptt = 1.4-0.5.beta2.fc16 MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/snmptt/snmptt_1.4beta2.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5405cbff92633772bc297e310f20d1e4b920309ea58420939f847ef5c32c55b4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5405cbff92633772bc297e310f20d1e4b920309ea58420939f847ef5c32c55b4 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 Buildroot used: fedora-16-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 870615 -- 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