https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1071490 John Eckersberg <jeckersb@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jomara@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(jomara@xxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #1 from John Eckersberg <jeckersb@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Rpm(s) have files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local: /srv openstack- tuskar-0.1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation - Rpmlint errors should be fixed - The tuskar user/group needs some attention. There is a comment about using static UID/GID allocation but the referenced ticket implies that is not required. I think the TODO comment should be removed. Also, I don't think this user/group is actually being used. The systemd unit file runs tuskar-api as root. ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/systemd [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Missing changelog entry for 0.1.0-1, you can also see this in the rpmlint output. [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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). This snippet in %install: --- # install systemd scripts mkdir -p %{buildroot}/usr/lib/systemd/system/ install -p -D -m 644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/systemd/system/ --- correctly uses %{_prefix} in the second line but has /usr hard-coded in the first. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. See "Issues" section at top regarding files in /srv [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. I'm not sure why python-lockfile is a BuildRequires. It doesn't appear to be used anywhere, please double check this one. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [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]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: 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. Python: [x]: 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 See note "%{__python} deprecated" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: http://fedorapeople.org/~jomara/tuskar/tuskar-0.1.0.tar.gz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Latest version seems to be 0.2.1: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/tuskar [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. No %check section present. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint openstack-tuskar openstack-tuskar.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-amqplib openstack-tuskar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datacenter -> data center, data-center, centerboard openstack-tuskar.noarch: W: non-standard-group Application/System openstack-tuskar.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7-2 ['0.1.0-1.fc21', '0.1.0-1'] openstack-tuskar.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/tuskar/cmd/manager.py 0644L /usr/bin/env openstack-tuskar.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/tuskar/cmd/api.py 0644L /usr/bin/env openstack-tuskar.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/tuskar/openstack/common/rootwrap/cmd.py 0644L /usr/bin/env openstack-tuskar.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /etc/tuskar tuskar openstack-tuskar.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/tuskar 0750L openstack-tuskar.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/tuskar/common/service.py 0644L /usr/bin/env openstack-tuskar.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/tuskar/openstack/common/config/generator.py 0644L /usr/bin/env openstack-tuskar.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /etc/tuskar/tuskar.conf tuskar openstack-tuskar.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/tuskar/tuskar.conf 0640L openstack-tuskar.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/tuskar/openstack/common/rpc/zmq_receiver.py 0644L /usr/bin/env openstack-tuskar.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/tuskar/cmd/dbsync.py 0644L /usr/bin/env openstack-tuskar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tuskar-api openstack-tuskar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tuskar-dbsync openstack-tuskar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tuskar-manager 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 8 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- openstack-tuskar (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python PyYAML config(openstack-tuskar) openstack-tripleo-heat-templates python(abi) python-amqplib python-anyjson python-argparse python-eventlet python-flask python-flask-babel python-greenlet python-heatclient python-iso8601 python-keystoneclient python-kombu python-lxml python-migrate python-novaclient python-oslo-config python-pbr python-pecan python-setuptools_git python-six python-sqlalchemy python-webob python-wsme Provides -------- openstack-tuskar: config(openstack-tuskar) openstack-tuskar Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (a430ece) last change: 2014-03-05 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1071490 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -L /tmp/review-deps/ Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Built with local dependencies: /tmp/review-deps/python-tuskarclient-0.1.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm /tmp/review-deps/openstack-tripleo-heat-templates-0.4.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm -- 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