https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020456 --- Comment #25 from Michael Adam <madam@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Here is my review result: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ==> The fedora-review tool seems to be broken here: the wiki states that the license file is to be included under %license, not under %doc. So this is OK. ===== 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. ==> MIT [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "WTFPL", "Unknown or generated". 758 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/obnox/review/1020456-vagrant/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d, /usr/lib/rpm, /usr/share/bash-completion/completions, /usr/share/bash- completion ==> The correct thing to do seems to be to require bash_completion and rpm, but no other rpms seem to do that... [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: 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]: 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 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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vagrant-doc [-]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. ==> it seems to have been a deliberate decision not to package the very new latest version (1.7.2), but a slighytly older version 1.6.5 instead. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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. [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: vagrant-1.6.5-15.fc22.noarch.rpm vagrant-doc-1.6.5-15.fc22.noarch.rpm vagrant-1.6.5-15.fc22.src.rpm vagrant.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualized -> ritualized, visualized, actualized vagrant.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, visualized, actualized ==> OK vagrant.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ==> OK, rmp-macros have to go there vagrant.noarch: W: no-documentation ==> Put at least README.me into the main package? vagrant.noarch: E: non-readable /var/lib/vagrant/plugins.json 0L ==> %ghost file, fixed by touching file in %install vagrant.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/vagrant 0644L /bin/bash ==> fixed by installing with different perms vagrant.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/vagrant/plugins/communicators/winrm/command_filters/mkdir.rb ==> fixed permission of upstream file in install vagrant.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vagrant ==> TODO? maybe later? vagrant.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualized -> ritualized, visualized, actualized vagrant.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, visualized, actualized ==> PL vagrant.src: W: strange-permission binstub 0775L 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@sphere /]# rpmlint vagrant vagrant-doc vagrant.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualized -> ritualized, visualized, actualized vagrant.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, visualized, actualized vagrant.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib vagrant.noarch: W: no-documentation vagrant.noarch: E: non-readable /var/lib/vagrant/plugins.json 0L vagrant.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/vagrant 0644L /bin/bash vagrant.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/vagrant/plugins/communicators/winrm/command_filters/mkdir.rb vagrant.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vagrant 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@sphere /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- vagrant (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/env bsdtar curl ruby ruby(release) ruby(rubygems) rubygem(bundler) rubygem(childprocess) rubygem(erubis) rubygem(hashicorp-checkpoint) rubygem(i18n) rubygem(listen) rubygem(log4r) rubygem(net-scp) rubygem(net-ssh) rubygem(nokogiri) rubygem(rb-inotify) shadow-utils vagrant-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vagrant Provides -------- vagrant: vagrant vagrant-doc: vagrant-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant-spec/archive/c0dafc996165bf1628b672dd533f1858ff66fe4a/vagrant-spec-c0dafc996165bf1628b672dd533f1858ff66fe4a.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a406ffcf3213d64639e26ecc373586792907b68cf6f1b462b87c44c37ed441e5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a406ffcf3213d64639e26ecc373586792907b68cf6f1b462b87c44c37ed441e5 https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant/archive/v1.6.5/vagrant-1.6.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ed9575529844b66125e2f6b5ffca1028238d9ca020ff952d8b6ca6ccab4b7fba CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ed9575529844b66125e2f6b5ffca1028238d9ca020ff952d8b6ca6ccab4b7fba Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -c -b 1020456 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A few minor issues are addressed by the patch to the specfile I'll attach next. Main question is about the dependencies for the directories leading to rpm-macros and bash_completion. According to the fedora packaging guidelines, the proper thing would be to require the packages that provide these directories, i.e. rpm and bash_completion, but rpm seems silly to require for an rpm and for bash_completion noone seems to do it... -- 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