https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output Solution: use `install -pm 0755` or `install -pm0644`. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - License-tag has malicious value. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main - Package *MUST NOT* own dirs, which are owned by another package. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership - Daemon-application without fully hardening. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags - Applicable compiler-flags are not passed to compiler / linker. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags - Patch without clarified license, origin and upstreaming. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment - Inefficient parallel make. See: my comment during report - Doxygen-file present, but no docs are generated nor packaged. Solution: BR: doxygen graphviz, invoke `doxygen Doxyfile` during build, create -doc-subpkg and include %doc doc/html and the docs from mainpkg. - Non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl. Solution: use %config %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/* in %files-section - File `config.example` is missing from %doc. Solution: include the file within %doc. - Package consistently uses macros. Source-url is not macroized. Solution: v0.5.tar.gz ---> %{version}.tar.gz - Source0 preferred over Source. - Please re-name the upstream to NV.tar*. Solution: append '#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz' to Source0. - URL-tag *SHOULD NOT* end in *.html or similar: Solution: remove `index.html` - Group-tag is obsoleted since RHEL6. Solution: remove it or conditionalize for RHEL5, e.g.: %{?el5:Group:…} ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. ---> license is matching the sources, but the content of the tag is bad: Apache License, Version 2.0 ---> ASL 2.0 Which would be the correct content of the license-tag inside the spec-file. see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/bash_completion.d(git, bzr, rpmdevtools, mercurial, filesystem, pulseaudio, bash-completion, python- django-bash-completion, yum-utils, fedpkg, quilt) ---> having your package own that dir is bad, since this dir is already owned by the filesystem-pkg, which is a basic package to be found on every non-b0rk3n installation of Fedora or RHEL. About the other packages: I'll file a bug against them… [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ---> compiler flags are not exported properly. Please prepend this to the line(s) invoking `make`: CFLAGS="%{?optflags}" LDFLAGS="%{?__global_ldflags}" The next thing is: This pkg builds a daemon application, which means "fully hardening" *MUST* be on go. Please add this on top of your spec-file: %global _hardened_build 1 [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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). ---> source-url is not macroized: v0.5.tar.gz ---> %{version}.tar.gz [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. ---> would it be useful to have a systemd-unit for the daemon? what about EPEL, SysVInit? [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> severe issues are present. :( [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. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. ---> as stated above. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [x]: 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. ---> where does this patch come from? license? Has it been upstreamed? Where and how has it been upstreamed? Please clarify this by a comment above the PatchX-tags. [-]: 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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. ---> you are invoking `make` several times inside the same dir with different targets. To make full use of parallelization, specify all target inside the same dir within the same invocation of `make` e.g. make -C src/ %{?_smp_mflags} rad ractl racomplete-ractl [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: ratools-0.5-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm ratools-0.5-2.fc21.src.rpm ratools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti ratools.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache License, Version 2.0 ratools.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/bin/ractl 0751L ratools.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ractl 0751L ratools.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl ratools.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/bin/rad 0751L ratools.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/rad 0751L ratools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rad ratools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ractl ratools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti ratools.src: W: invalid-license Apache License, Version 2.0 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ratools ratools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti ratools.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache License, Version 2.0 ratools.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/bin/ractl 0751L ratools.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ractl 0751L ratools.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl ratools.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/bin/rad 0751L ratools.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/rad 0751L ratools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rad ratools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ractl 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ratools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ratools: ratools ratools(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/danrl/ratools/archive/v0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6cb7780e80446bb0013495fb114e0266399583230224776e62e30c3ea2ac5e62 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6cb7780e80446bb0013495fb114e0266399583230224776e62e30c3ea2ac5e62 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 1100899 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 ===== Solution ===== NOT approved. Please fix those issues and I' ll take another review. ===== Additional Information ===== Before I'm going to sponsor you into the package-group, I want to see some *INFORMAL* package-reviews made by you. You can find package, which need a review, over here [1]. If you have any questions, I think you know where to find me, rye? ;) [1] http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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