https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013485 --- Comment #2 from Dridi Boukelmoune <dridi.boukelmoune@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/mod_scgi See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names - Package is licensed with MIT, and CNRI for the code it forked - Long running packages must be hardened (_hardened_build) - Package has a %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Package contains a bundled passfd The upstream name is actually scgi, the package should maybe be named scgi and build sub-packages python-passfd and mod_scgi. - Does it really run with the specific version of httpd it was built against ? Requires: httpd-mmn = %(cat %{_includedir}/httpd/.mmn || echo missing) - Spec uses unversionned __python macro - Missing .py and .pyo for quixote_handler and scgi_server - Patches don't link to upstream bugs/comments/lists and are not justified. - Spec uses %define instead of %global ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dridi/fedora/_reviews/1013485-mod_scgi/licensecheck.txt [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: 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. [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. [?]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [?]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [?]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 8 files. [!]: 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]: 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 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 [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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. [-]: 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 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 Python: [?]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [?]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %{!?python_sitearch: %define python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib(1)")} [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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: mod_scgi-1.14-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm mod_scgi-1.14-1.fc18.src.rpm mod_scgi.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/scgi/passfd.so passfd.so()(64bit) mod_scgi.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/quixote_handler 0644L mod_scgi.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/bin/quixote_handler 0644L /usr/bin/env mod_scgi.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/scgi_server 0644L mod_scgi.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/bin/scgi_server 0644L /usr/bin/env mod_scgi.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/scgi/passfd.so 0775L mod_scgi.x86_64: W: python-bytecode-without-source /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/scgi/scgi_server.pyc mod_scgi.x86_64: W: python-bytecode-without-source /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/scgi/quixote_handler.pyc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mod_scgi mod_scgi.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/scgi/passfd.so passfd.so()(64bit) mod_scgi.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/quixote_handler 0644L mod_scgi.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/bin/quixote_handler 0644L /usr/bin/env mod_scgi.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/scgi_server 0644L mod_scgi.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/bin/scgi_server 0644L /usr/bin/env mod_scgi.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/scgi/passfd.so 0775L mod_scgi.x86_64: W: python-bytecode-without-source /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/scgi/scgi_server.pyc mod_scgi.x86_64: W: python-bytecode-without-source /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/scgi/quixote_handler.pyc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mod_scgi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(mod_scgi) httpd-mmn libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- mod_scgi: config(mod_scgi) mod_scgi mod_scgi(x86-64) mod_scgi.so()(64bit) passfd.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- mod_scgi: /usr/lib64/httpd/modules/mod_scgi.so mod_scgi: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/scgi/passfd.so Source checksums ---------------- http://python.ca/scgi/releases/scgi-1.14.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0cde41e4ae58ea666f17f6b1984e8ed8ebaff92cabac4b1b36f86bc47eb18e75 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0cde41e4ae58ea666f17f6b1984e8ed8ebaff92cabac4b1b36f86bc47eb18e75 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1013485 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 -- 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