https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #15 from Philip Prindeville <philipp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #13) > - Add %config(noreplace) to the cron tab file. > - Add Requires: crontabs. Done. > ===== 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: > [?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > I cannot find the license statement anywhere. There's a LICENSE file on github that somehow didn't make it into the release tarball. > [?]: 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. > Please ask upstream to include a license file and add a link to the bug > report in the spec file. Done. > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or > later)", > "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 5 > files > have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /var/tmp/1186889-geoipupdate/licensecheck.txt > [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Upstream limitation... no LICENSE file. > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/cron.weekly > [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > Package processes untrusted input from the network. Add > %global _hardened_build 1 Fixed. > [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 compat. > > [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Not sure why this was marked thusly. > [-]: 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. > [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > [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]: %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. > [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. Done: https://github.com/maxmind/geoipupdate/issues/25 and indeed this was promptly fixed and will be in the next release. > [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > geoipupdate-cron > This must be added. Added %{?_isa} > [?]: Package functions as described. > I'll leave testing for the final version. > > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [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. > [x]: 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]: 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: geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.fc22.i686.rpm > geoipupdate-cron-2.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm > geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm > geoipupdate.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/GeoIP.conf.default > Please move this to the documentation directory. Fixed. > geoipupdate-cron.noarch: W: no-documentation > geoipupdate.src: W: invalid-url Source0: > http://github.com/maxmind/geoipupdate/releases/download/v2.1.0/geoipupdate-2. > 1.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden This is limitation of rpmlint using HEAD request which github.com won't honor. > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > Requires > -------- > geoipupdate-cron (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /bin/sh > geoipupdate > > geoipupdate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > config(geoipupdate) > libc.so.6 > libcurl.so.4 > libz.so.1 > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > > > Provides > -------- > geoipupdate-cron: > geoipupdate-cron > > geoipupdate: > GeoIP-update > config(geoipupdate) > geoipupdate > geoipupdate(x86-32) > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > http://github.com/maxmind/geoipupdate/releases/download/v2.1.0/geoipupdate-2. > 1.0.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 7388c46f6c483ae609e5f5333a2585bc9713d56bb522da5c11b09d41c87aa5fb > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 7388c46f6c483ae609e5f5333a2585bc9713d56bb522da5c11b09d41c87aa5fb > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1186889 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 > 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