https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876317 Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> --- 1. version change => agreed, i was fine with using timestamp since usually AWS is not always consistent with script versionning 2. license => agreed on MIT, you asked Amazon and they didn't answer. Both APSLv2.0 and MIT are accepted by fp.o and as a command-line tool, it has a low-incidence compared to a library. Since this review is pending for quite a time, and it could be easily fixed later, i won't block the review for that issue. 3. Since you're planning to put this in EPEL5+, i have nothing to complain about the packaging. So, i hereby approve this package into Fedora Packages Collection, you'll find the formal review below (generated with the help of fedora-review) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. Website says Apache License v2.0, the script header looks like MIT. On IRC, you confirmed that Amazon didn't answer you. Both license are compliant with Fedora guidelines, and as it's a command-line tool, so i agree with you to consider this piece of work as MIT. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Standalone shell script, since it has a license header, it would be overkill to request upstream. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. Tested on a AWS instance right now [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ec2-metadata-0.1.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm ec2-metadata-0.1.1-1.fc18.src.rpm ec2-metadata.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://aws.amazon.com/code/1825 HTTP Error 405: MethodNotAllowed ec2-metadata.noarch: W: no-documentation ec2-metadata.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ec2-metadata ec2-metadata.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://aws.amazon.com/code/1825 HTTP Error 405: MethodNotAllowed 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ec2-metadata ec2-metadata.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://aws.amazon.com/code/1825 HTTP Error 405: MethodNotAllowed ec2-metadata.noarch: W: no-documentation ec2-metadata.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ec2-metadata 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ec2-metadata (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash bash curl Provides -------- ec2-metadata: ec2-metadata Source checksums ---------------- http://s3.amazonaws.com/ec2metadata/ec2-metadata : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e320585b2455a879f201c6a0cc381a5b645ce1bd851c7946e12dc6513c07769d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e320585b2455a879f201c6a0cc381a5b645ce1bd851c7946e12dc6513c07769d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review