https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079436 John Eckersberg <jeckersb@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jomara@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(jomara@xxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #4 from John Eckersberg <jeckersb@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The upstream source tarball does not match the source tarball in the srpm - Extra unneeded Requires? - No provided egg info - Use of deprecated %{__python} macro - No %check section for tests - Use of 'mv' does not preserve timestamps - Group should be "Applications/System", not "Application/System" (note extra 's') ===== 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. [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/openstack- dashboard/openstack_dashboard/local/enabled, /etc/openstack- dashboard/enabled I don't know why this is getting flagged. Those are owned by openstack-dashboard and that is appropriately required. This can be ignored I think. [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled, /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/openstack_dashboard/local/enabled Same as above. [x]: 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. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: 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. Do you need to explicitly require the client libraries for all of the openstack components here? At a glance it looks like some of them aren't used (e.g. keystone, cinder, neutron) [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: 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 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]: 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: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [!]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Use of deprecated %{__python} macro; use %{__python2} instead. [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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). See previous note on Requires [ ]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Probably not, since the tarballs do not match. [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. No %check section [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Use install -p instead of mv [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]: 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 ------- Checking: openstack-tuskar-ui-0.1.0-2.fc21.noarch.rpm openstack-tuskar-ui-0.1.0-2.fc21.src.rpm openstack-tuskar-ui.noarch: W: non-standard-group Application/System openstack-tuskar-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_50_tuskar.pyc openstack-tuskar-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_50_tuskar.pyo openstack-tuskar-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_50_tuskar.py openstack-tuskar-ui.src: W: non-standard-group Application/System openstack-tuskar-ui.src: W: file-size-mismatch tuskar-ui-0.1.0.tar.gz = 429322, http://fedorapeople.org/~jomara/tuskar/tuskar-ui-0.1.0.tar.gz = 436462 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint openstack-tuskar-ui openstack-tuskar-ui.noarch: W: non-standard-group Application/System openstack-tuskar-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_50_tuskar.pyc openstack-tuskar-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_50_tuskar.pyo openstack-tuskar-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_50_tuskar.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- openstack-tuskar-ui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Django openstack-dashboard python(abi) python-ceilometerclient python-cinderclient python-django python-django-compressor python-django-openstack-auth python-eventlet python-glanceclient python-heatclient python-ironicclient python-iso8601 python-keystoneclient python-kombu python-lockfile python-netaddr python-neutronclient python-novaclient python-oslo-config python-pbr python-swiftclient python-tuskarclient pytz Provides -------- openstack-tuskar-ui: openstack-tuskar-ui Source checksums ---------------- http://fedorapeople.org/~jomara/tuskar/tuskar-ui-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2c0ef6b35e07be0666a3858f114b242bc04cfd197ccc12f096404d6659bee57b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c216a4080f3a586e7270de27f0b960587bed9e84af480ec6ad3cf09d31a17cd6 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (a430ece) last change: 2014-03-05 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1079436 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -L ./repo/ 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: /data/git/FedoraReview/./repo/python-ironicclient-0.1.2-5.fc21.noarch.rpm /data/git/FedoraReview/./repo/python-tuskarclient-0.1.3-1.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