https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892698 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. %{optflags} and %{__global_ldflags} not forwarded to gcc [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. The main package depends on the libraries in the -libs packes, so you might consider adding a fully versioned dependendy to the main package on the -libs package. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines There was a change to the guidelines introduced recently banning arch specific BuildRequires: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRequires_and_.25.7B_isa.7D Personally I consider this guideline change unfortunate and believe it to cause more problems than it solves. I have filed a request to FPC asking them to reconsider this change which so far has been ignored. But as long as it is still there I see no other choice than to follow it, unfortunately. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). There are a few hardcoded /var in %install and %pre, the %files section uses %{_localstatedir} though. %build says "--prefix=/usr" instead of "--prefix=%{_prefix}" [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. [-]: 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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 6 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. [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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr. [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). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make. [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. 1.3.34 is available: http://scientific.zcu.cz/emi/emi.px.proxyrenewal/glite-px-proxyrenewal-1.3.34.tar.gz [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. The output is "echo No unit tests", so it might not be so useful. But later versions might add tests, and having a %check section means that if a later version adds tests they will be run, so it's fine. [x]: 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: glite-px-proxyrenewal-1.3.29-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm glite-px-proxyrenewal-libs-1.3.29-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm glite-px-proxyrenewal-devel-1.3.29-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C gLite proxyrenewal renews existing proxy certificates for grid users glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/spool/glite-renewd glite glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/spool/glite-renewd glite glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/glite-renewd 0700L glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/glite glite glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/glite glite glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glite-proxy-setup glite-px-proxyrenewal-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint glite-px-proxyrenewal-libs glite-px-proxyrenewal-devel glite-px-proxyrenewal glite-px-proxyrenewal-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libglite_security_proxyrenewal_core.so.1.3.29 /lib64/libssl.so.10 glite-px-proxyrenewal-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libglite_security_proxyrenewal_core.so.1.3.29 /lib64/libglobus_gssapi_gsi.so.4 glite-px-proxyrenewal-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C gLite proxyrenewal renews existing proxy certificates for grid users glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/spool/glite-renewd glite glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/spool/glite-renewd glite glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/glite-renewd 0700L glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/glite glite glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/glite glite glite-px-proxyrenewal.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glite-proxy-setup 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- glite-px-proxyrenewal-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libglobus_gsi_proxy_core.so.0()(64bit) libglobus_gssapi_gsi.so.4()(64bit) libmyproxy.so.5()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libvomsapi.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) glite-px-proxyrenewal-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glite-px-proxyrenewal-libs(x86-64) libglite_security_proxyrenewal.so.1()(64bit) libglite_security_proxyrenewal_core.so.1()(64bit) glite-px-proxyrenewal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(glite-px-proxyrenewal) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libglite_security_proxyrenewal.so.1()(64bit) libglite_security_proxyrenewal_core.so.1()(64bit) libglobus_common.so.0()(64bit) libglobus_common.so.0(GLOBUS_COMMON_14)(64bit) libglobus_gsi_cert_utils.so.0()(64bit) libglobus_gsi_credential.so.1()(64bit) libglobus_gsi_proxy_core.so.0()(64bit) libglobus_gssapi_gsi.so.4()(64bit) libmyproxy.so.5()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libvomsapi.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd Provides -------- glite-px-proxyrenewal-libs: glite-px-proxyrenewal-libs glite-px-proxyrenewal-libs(x86-64) libglite_security_proxyrenewal.so.1()(64bit) libglite_security_proxyrenewal_core.so.1()(64bit) glite-px-proxyrenewal-devel: glite-px-proxyrenewal-devel glite-px-proxyrenewal-devel(x86-64) glite-px-proxyrenewal: config(glite-px-proxyrenewal) glite-px-proxyrenewal glite-px-proxyrenewal(x86-64) glite-px-proxyrenewal-progs Source checksums ---------------- http://scientific.zcu.cz/emi/emi.px.proxyrenewal/glite-px-proxyrenewal-1.3.29.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a91fd161d617755b0f4aea093dc9bd3b828387429e8ad8b123d0e1f2d9df6a38 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a91fd161d617755b0f4aea093dc9bd3b828387429e8ad8b123d0e1f2d9df6a38 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 892698 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 ---------------------------- There is an inconsistency with the glite-proxy-renewd being installed in /usr/bin and its man page in section 8. Normally binaries in /usr/bin should have their man page in section 1 and binaries in /usr/sbin the man page in section 8. Would it not make sense to have this binary in /usr/sbin? It looks like primarily a system binary since it is handled by systemd rather than a user binary. -- 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=WkNpP0DtK7&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review