https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087737 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 124 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pasha/SOFT/Review/php-horde-ingo/1087737-php- horde-ingo/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/horde horde package contain that directory should be required. Package horde should be required? [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/horde/ingo/lib(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo/lib/Storage(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo/locale/zh_CN(ingo), /etc/horde/ingo(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo/lib/Block(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo/templates(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo/lib/tests(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo/locale/zh_TW/LC_MESSAGES(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo/locale/zh_TW(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo/themes(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo/js(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo/locale(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo/lib/Script(ingo) Files present also in ingo package which is obsoleted by that one (ingo orphaned for devel). So it should not be issue. [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 Other legacy stuff found like %defattr(-,root,root,-). It should be fixed if package does not targeted to EL-5. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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]: 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]: 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. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [!]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. lib/tests exists, please consider run it. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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: php-horde-ingo-3.1.4-1.fc21.noarch.rpm php-horde-ingo-3.1.4-1.fc21.src.rpm php-horde-ingo.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/ingo/hooks.php.dist php-horde-ingo.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/ingo/conf.xml php-horde-ingo.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/horde/ingo/hooks.php.dist 0640L php-horde-ingo.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/horde/ingo/prefs.php 0660L php-horde-ingo.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/horde/ingo/fields.php 0660L php-horde-ingo.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/horde/ingo 0770L php-horde-ingo.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/horde/ingo/conf.xml 0660L php-horde-ingo.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/horde/ingo/backends.php 0660L php-horde-ingo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ingo-convert-sql-shares-to-sqlng php-horde-ingo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ingo-postfix-policyd php-horde-ingo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ingo-convert-prefs-to-sql php-horde-ingo.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/pear/ingo/INSTALL 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint php-horde-ingo php-horde-ingo.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/ingo/hooks.php.dist php-horde-ingo.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/ingo/conf.xml php-horde-ingo.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/horde/ingo/hooks.php.dist 0640L php-horde-ingo.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/horde/ingo/prefs.php 0660L php-horde-ingo.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/horde/ingo/fields.php 0660L php-horde-ingo.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/horde/ingo 0770L php-horde-ingo.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/horde/ingo/conf.xml 0660L php-horde-ingo.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/horde/ingo/backends.php 0660L php-horde-ingo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ingo-convert-sql-shares-to-sqlng php-horde-ingo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ingo-postfix-policyd php-horde-ingo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ingo-convert-prefs-to-sql php-horde-ingo.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/pear/ingo/INSTALL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 6 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- php-horde-ingo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/pear /usr/bin/php config(php-horde-ingo) httpd mod_php php(language) php-channel(pear.horde.org) php-date php-gettext php-ldap php-pcre php-pear(Net_Sieve) php-pear(Net_Socket) php-pear(PEAR) php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Auth) php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Autoloader) php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Core) php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Exception) php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Form) php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Group) php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Imap_Client) php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Mime) php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Perms) php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Role) php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Share) php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Util) php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_View) php-pear(pear.horde.org/horde) php-spl Provides -------- php-horde-ingo: config(php-horde-ingo) ingo php-horde-ingo php-pear(pear.horde.org/ingo) Source checksums ---------------- http://pear.horde.org/get/ingo-3.1.4.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a8897e1148ed258eab2e914a80a1b23eabc65ee3c2445711b6429910613240b1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a8897e1148ed258eab2e914a80a1b23eabc65ee3c2445711b6429910613240b1 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1087737 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Conclusion: 1) Requires horde missing. 2) tests run needed. 3) Cleanup legacy stuff highly recommended if package does not targeted to EL-5. Other seams fine. -- 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