[Bug 894413] Review Request: davmail - DavMail is a POP/IMAP/SMTP/Caldav/Carddav/LDAP gateway for Microsoft Exchange

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413

--- Comment #23 from Marcin.Dulak@xxxxxxxxx ---

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- No %config files under /usr.
  Note: %config(noreplace) /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files

  ----> I see this is how mylvmbackup is packaged upstream
       
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=mylvmbackup&project=home%3ALenzGr
, but we can't use %config under /usr in Fedora.
        A solution could be to use, e.g.:
        hooksdir=/etc/mylvmbackup/hooks in /etc/mylvmbackup.conf
        and create that dir in spec.
        I guess one should communicate this choice upstream.

        Another comment: the upstream build.opensuse.org and the current spec
        share some similarities - if you based on upstream - include this
        information in changelog.


===== 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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.

  ----> /etc/mylvmbackup.conf refers to /etc/my.cnf, and this is provided by
        (let's drop el5 - Requires: mysql):
        el6, f17-f18: Requires: mysql-libs
        f19-: Requires: mariadb-libs

[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/mock/977646-mylvmbackup/licensecheck.txt

  ----> false positive due to /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm files

[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

  ----> see "Package requires other packages for directories it uses." above

[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.

  ----> see "No %config files under /usr." above

[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Perl:
[ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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: mylvmbackup-0.14-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile
/usr/share/mylvmbackup/logerr.pm
mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile
/usr/share/mylvmbackup/backupfailure.pm
mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile
/usr/share/mylvmbackup/preflush.pm

  ----> see "No %config files under /usr." above

mylvmbackup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/mylvmbackup.conf 0600L

  ----> This is due to /etc/mylvmbackup.conf potentially containing
        sensitive information (mysql password, ...). 
        There is a "--password=string" option to mylvmbackup,
        but in case someone writes password into /etc/mylvmbackup.conf
        it's safer to keep the permission as they are now (0600).

mylvmbackup.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/mylvmbackup

  ----> incorrect postal address of FSF
        "In all cases, upstream should be informed about this. This is the only
requirement with respect to this error."
       
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
        Please write to https://launchpad.net/~mylvmbackup-discuss
        or https://bugs.launchpad.net/mylvmbackup

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint mylvmbackup
mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile
/usr/share/mylvmbackup/logerr.pm
mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile
/usr/share/mylvmbackup/backupfailure.pm
mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile
/usr/share/mylvmbackup/preflush.pm
mylvmbackup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/mylvmbackup.conf 0600L
mylvmbackup.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/mylvmbackup

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
mylvmbackup (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(mylvmbackup)
    perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.3)
    perl(Date::Format)
    perl(Sys::Hostname)
    perl(strict)



Provides
--------
mylvmbackup:
    config(mylvmbackup)
    mylvmbackup
    perl(backupfailure)
    perl(logerr)
    perl(preflush)



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.lenzg.net/mylvmbackup/mylvmbackup-0.14.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
a979082f525f5b0b44bd09169938f2b5d8394fc403fc8b6a6e8b809d7c1a5724
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a979082f525f5b0b44bd09169938f2b5d8394fc403fc8b6a6e8b809d7c1a5724


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 977646

-- 
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=P2DDLEuteg&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]