https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413 --- Comment #24 from Marcin.Dulak@xxxxxxxxx --- I'm sorry - discard it - wrong bug! I(In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #23) > 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=x8jHPKBtIj&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review