https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013485 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Dridi Boukelmoune from comment #2) > 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 This is only a re-review. Package name is the same. > > > - Package is licensed with MIT, and CNRI for the code it forked License corrected. > - Long running packages must be hardened (_hardened_build) > - Package has a %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > - Package contains a bundled passfd Removed bundled passfd and removed unrequired bits from the spec. > 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) It's there from the original spec, so I think yes. > - 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 Updated spec to correct this. > > ===== 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 It's an apache module. I don't think it needs to be versioned as usual shared objects. > 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 Updated spec/srpms: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/mod_scgi/mod_scgi.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/mod_scgi/mod_scgi-1.14-1.fc21.src.rpm Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- 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