https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069259 --- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Please have a look at various issues found by fedora-review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - 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/ndoutils See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names This is a re-review of a formerly retired package. - No license file seems to be included in the package ===== 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: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Some of the source files say GPLv2 but no license file included. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 61 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/petersen/pkgreview/1069259-ndoutils/licensecheck.txt See attachment below https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/nagios/brokers [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/nagios/brokers [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required EPEL5 branch exists [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: 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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. See above for unowned dirs [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 624640 bytes in 83 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]: 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]: %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]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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. please add comment above the Patch lines [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [?]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: 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: ndoutils-2.0.0-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm ndoutils-2.0.0-2.fc21.src.rpm ndoutils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/file2sock 0774L ndoutils.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/ndoutils nagios ndoutils.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/ndoutils nagios ndoutils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/sockdebug 0774L ndoutils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/log2ndo 0774L ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary log2ndo ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sockdebug ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndo2db ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary file2sock ndoutils.src: W: strange-permission ndoutils-2.0.0.tar.gz 0444L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ndoutils ndoutils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/file2sock 0774L ndoutils.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/ndoutils nagios ndoutils.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/ndoutils nagios ndoutils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/sockdebug 0774L ndoutils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/log2ndo 0774L ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary log2ndo ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sockdebug ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndo2db ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary file2sock 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ndoutils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(ndoutils) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmysqlclient.so.18()(64bit) libmysqlclient.so.18(libmysqlclient_18)(64bit) libnsl.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) nagios rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd Provides -------- ndoutils: config(ndoutils) ndoutils ndoutils(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- ndoutils: /usr/lib64/nagios/brokers/ndomod.so Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/nagios/ndoutils-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b95047c812fb61465e66a9e1a6d4a42bf00620f334f08a6faf5afe20bdd43ba1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b95047c812fb61465e66a9e1a6d4a42bf00620f334f08a6faf5afe20bdd43ba1 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1069259 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- 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