[Bug 958810] Review Request: gfal2-plugin-xrootd - Provide xrootd support for GFAL2

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

 



Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958810

Alejandro Alvarez <alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@xxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@ce
                   |                            |rn.ch

--- Comment #1 from Alejandro Alvarez <alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@xxxxxxx> ---
Hi,

Here is my informal review

rpmlint output
==============
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

MUST
====

[OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[OK] Package does not use a name that already exist.
[OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[OK] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[FAIL] Changelog in prescribed format.

    Only packaging related entries should appear. There are entries
    related to upstream.

[OK] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
[OK] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[OK] The spec file must be written in American English.
[OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[--] If a rename, provides/obsoletes is specified.
[--] The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[OK] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the
dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.

[FAIL] 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.

    It is manually installed under _docdir

[OK] -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[--] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[--] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[--] Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[--] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.

[OK] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.

[OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content.

[OK] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[OK] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[OK] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[--] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
[OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
[OK] 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.
[OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[--] 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.
[OK] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[OK] Permissions on files must be set properly.

[OK] Each package must consistently use macros.
[OK] No external kernel modules
[OK] No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries
[OK] No need for external bits
[WARN] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.

    gfal2-devel requires glib2-devel, so this BuildRequires should
    be removed.

[--] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
[OK] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

   
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags

[OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
[--] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[OK] Package installs properly.

SHOULD
======
[--] All patches have an upstream bug link or comment
[OK] The source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream.
[OK] No PreReq
[OK] %makeinstall is not used
[OK] Timestamp is preserved
[FAILED] Parallel make

    Missing make %{?_smp_mflags} in build, or those flags in install

[--] Subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency.
[--] 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.
[--] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files should be in a -devel pkg
[OK] The package builds in mock.
[OK] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[OK] The package functions as described.
[--] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[--] The package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts
[--] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.

-- 
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=1fwCj0hvoq&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
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]