Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905304 --- Comment #4 from Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> --- * Comment: I noticed some problems on the licensing front in the course of review - problems in upstream, not your package. See https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/42/ . * Comment: I don't think this is a blocker for the review, but it seems a shame to be introducing a SysV-native package at this point. If you feel like adding a systemd service and contributing it upstream, that might be nice. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd . MUST: rpmlint output (SRPM and spec): PASS W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} %{?_smp_mflags} %{LIBTOOL} W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) milter -> molter, miler, miter W: spelling-error %description -l en_US milter -> molter, miler, miter W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sendmail -> send mail, send-mail, Sendai All bogus. MUST: rpmlint output (RPMs): NEEDSWORK W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.1 ['1.0.1-1.fc17', '1.0.1-1'] Bogus. E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/opendmarc-1.0.1/dmarcfail.py /usr/local/bin/python Doesn't seem significant, as it's in an example in the doc dir. W: non-standard-uid /var/run/opendmarc opendmarc W: non-standard-gid /var/run/opendmarc opendmarc W: non-standard-uid /var/spool/opendmarc opendmarc W: non-standard-gid /var/spool/opendmarc opendmarc You're using the correct scriptlet snippets, so I figure these are bogus - probably rpmlint getting confused. E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/opendmarc.conf The spec has: install -m 0755 opendmarc/%{name}.conf.sample %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/%{name}.conf That does look wrong. Should be 0644 I guess? Or maybe even 0600? Not sure if it needs to be secured. E: script-without-shebang /etc/opendmarc.conf I think this is another symptom of it being marked executable. W: no-manual-page-for-binary opendmarc-importstats W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/opendmarc-1.0.1/INSTALL Not our problem. W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/opendmarc Indeed, the upstream service file is default enabled. So, here we wade into shark-infested waters: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Starting_services_by_default "If a service does not require configuration to be functional and does not listen on a network socket, it may be enabled by default (but is not required to do so)...All other services must not be enabled by default. If you think that your package contains a service that should be enabled by default, but does not meet the above criteria, you may request an exception from the FESCo." Now I may be wrong here, but I *think* the package is set up to listen on a network socket by default. opendmarc.conf.sample has: # Socket inet:8893@localhost and the spec does: sed -i 's|^# Socket |Socket |' %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/%{name}.conf Which I believe will result in opendmarc listening on port 8893 by default. Please explain if I'm wrong here. I believe acceptable alternatives would be to use a domain socket by default instead (though the opendmarc README notes a chrooted postfix may not be able to see it), or to not enable the service by default, or to request an exception, but again, IMBW. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines: PASS MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines: NEEDSWORK See above comment / upstream bug - the Sendmail license states "Redistributions of Source Code must retain the copyright notices as they appear in each Source Code file, these license terms, and the disclaimer/limitation of liability set forth as paragraph 6 below.", and the opendmarc tarball does not include the Sendmail license. If upstream doesn't respond to to the ticket promptly, you could just include it as an additional source file. If you think I'm being too much of a license weenie here, CC spot and see what he thinks :) MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license: PASS (though I like to include a comment on multi-license packages, briefly explaining in more detail) 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 must be included in %doc: PASS (but see above) MUST: The spec file must be written in American English: PASS MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible: PASS MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this: PASS MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture: PASS http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5042209 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line: N/A (AFAIK) MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense: PASS MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden: N/A MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun: PASS MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries: PASS MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker: N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory: PASS MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations): PASS MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example: NEEDSWORK (see rpmlint item) MUST: Each package must consistently use macros: PASS MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content: PASS MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity): N/A MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present: PASS MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package: N/A MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package: PASS MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}: NEEDSWORK - the %{?_isa} is missing (though that's a new wrinkle on me, too - there's a note attached to the guideline, read that :>) MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built: PASS MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation: N/A MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages: PASS MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8: PASS 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: I did that for you! SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available: N/A SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock: PASS (used koji) SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures: PASS SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example: I'll work on that later SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity: PASS SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: N/A SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb: N/A (no .pc file) SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself: N/A SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense: PASS Overall result - NEEDSWORK, but fairly minor. I'll start trying to actually deploy the package here soon, and add any additional comments (or pleas for help) :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dIopSN968N&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review