[Bug 1018092] Review Request: barman - Backup and Recovery Manager for PostgreSQL

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018092

Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?



--- Comment #12 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Right, it's mostly there. The only things I think that need to be addressed
are:
- output of rpmlink below. I think some of those are spurious.
- The license I believe (according to licensecheck at least) should be GPLv3+
- Did you check the Users/Groups guidelines for the barman user?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups

- rpmlint output

rpmlint barman-1.2.3-5.fc20.src.rpm barman-1.2.3-5.fc20.noarch.rpm
barman.src: W: strange-permission barman.logrotate 0600L
barman.src: W: strange-permission barman-1.2.3.tar.gz 0600L
barman.src: W: strange-permission barman.cron 0600L
barman.src: W: strange-permission barman.spec 0600L
barman.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 1)
barman.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/bash_completion.d/barman/barman.bash_completion
barman.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/logrotate.d/barman
barman.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/cron.d/barman
barman.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/barman barman
barman.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/barman barman
barman.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/barman 0700L
barman.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/barman barman
barman.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/barman barman
barman.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/barman/barman.log barman
barman.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/barman/barman.log barman
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
  looks like it should be GPLv3+ 
# licensecheck -r barman-1.2.3/
barman-1.2.3/barman/xlog.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/barman/version.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/barman/server.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/barman/compression.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/barman/retention_policies.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/barman/backup.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/barman/lockfile.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/barman/cli.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/barman/command_wrappers.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/barman/config.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/barman/__init__.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/setup.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/build/lib/barman/xlog.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/build/lib/barman/version.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/build/lib/barman/server.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/build/lib/barman/compression.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/build/lib/barman/retention_policies.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/build/lib/barman/backup.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/build/lib/barman/lockfile.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/build/lib/barman/cli.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/build/lib/barman/command_wrappers.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/build/lib/barman/config.py: GPL (v3 or later)
barman-1.2.3/build/lib/barman/__init__.py: GPL (v3 or later)

+ license matches the actual package license
+ latest version packaged
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  5348cf3ea707b43f8a98061d0d257f2d  barman-1.2.3.tar.gz
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  tested using koji scratch build
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr
n/a package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
+ Package perserves timestamps on install
+ Permissions on files must be set properly 
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package runtime 
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream to include it
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a non -devel packages should require fully versioned base
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /usr/bin or /usr/sbin
+ Package should have man files

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]