Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869861 Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== Notes ===== - Requires on attr may still be needed ( but again, this is a in progress discussion ) - Licensing is a little bit unclear ( why GPLv2, not more, etc ), but I guess that's nitpicking ( especially since the code is already under a BSD license ) - explicit %attr is likely not needed in %files, as this is the default permission ( IIRC ). Not blocking but would be cleaner IMHO. - not sure if that a groff issue or a man page issue pam_openshift.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/pam_openshift.8.gz 169: warning: macro `HTML-TAG' not defined Man page display fine, so let's say this is not blocking. So the package is approved. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. 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]: %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. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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: "BSD (3 clause)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/869861-pam_openshift/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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. [x]: 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 is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 5 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [-]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Uses parallel make. [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. [-]: %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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pam_openshift-1.1.2-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm pam_openshift.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Openshift -> Open shift, Open-shift, Downshift pam_openshift.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/pam_openshift.8.gz 169: warning: macro `HTML-TAG' not defined pam_openshift.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/pam_openshift.8.gz 169: warning: macro `"' not defined 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint pam_openshift pam_openshift.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Openshift -> Open shift, Open-shift, Downshift pam_openshift.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/pam_openshift.8.gz 169: warning: macro `HTML-TAG' not defined pam_openshift.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/pam_openshift.8.gz 169: warning: macro `"' not defined 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- pam_openshift (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(pam_openshift) libattr.so.1()(64bit) libattr.so.1(ATTR_1.0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_EXTENSION_1.0)(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_MODUTIL_1.0)(64bit) libselinux.so.1()(64bit) policycoreutils rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- pam_openshift: config(pam_openshift) pam-libra pam-openshift pam_openshift pam_openshift(x86-64) pam_openshift.so.1()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- pam_openshift: /lib64/security/pam_libra.so pam_openshift: /lib64/security/pam_openshift.so MD5-sum check ------------- http://mirror.openshift.com/pub/origin-server/source/pam_openshift/pam_openshift-1.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a3fc4758128aaf2566017e964d3df3e5a9e005c7b50e09f7c1adf04d052e9def CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a3fc4758128aaf2566017e964d3df3e5a9e005c7b50e09f7c1adf04d052e9def Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (Unknown) last change: Unknown Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 869861 -- 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