https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #26 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- Ah, OK, fedora-review was confused because the link to the previous version is quoted below your latest link. *I* was confused because you forgot to update the spec file :). But I can pull it out of the srpm. In macros: %preupgrade_name Fedora%{preupg_number}_%postupg_number %preupgrade_dir /usr/share/preupgrade/%fedora_preupgrade_name ← name does not match Requires: openscap%{?_isa} >= 0:1.0.8-1 ... Why %{?_isa}? This would make this package arch-dependent, and should be dropped from all Requires. Packaging Guidelines currently forbid using %{_isa} in BR. There's a ticket open to relax this, but in this case I don't think there's any benefit to having it, so those should be dropped too. > For Fedora system modified so that only first sentence can be mentioned, though. I still see the old text. ===== 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". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/review-preupgrade-assistant/licensecheck.txt [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 [!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. %doc %{_datadir}/preupgrade/README.kickstart ← remove %doc %doc %{_datadir}/preupgrade/README ← remove %doc Also: %dir %{_docdir}/preupgrade ← add %doc here, otherwise the directory would be created even if package is installed without doc files. %doc %{_docdir}/preupgrade/README [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [ ]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel BR: python-devel should be changed to python2-devel. [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [ ]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define egg_name %(echo %{name} | sed s/-/_/) Yep, %define should be replaced with %global. [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-5.fc23.noarch.rpm preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-5.fc23.src.rpm preupgrade-assistant.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US upgradeability -> upgrade ability, upgrade-ability, biodegradability preupgrade-assistant.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inplace -> in place, in-place, Laplace preupgrade-assistant.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postupgrade -> post upgrade, post-upgrade, postgraduate Bogus. preupgrade-assistant.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/preupgrade The package is fine without log rotation, because it is only invoked manually. OTOH, I'd much prefer if it logged to the journal. preupgrade-assistant.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary preupg-create-group-xml preupgrade-assistant.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary preupg-xccdf-compose preupgrade-assistant.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US upgradeability -> upgrade ability, upgrade-ability, biodegradability preupgrade-assistant.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inplace -> in place, in-place, Laplace preupgrade-assistant.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postupgrade -> post upgrade, post-upgrade, postgraduate preupgrade-assistant.src:174: W: macro-in-%changelog %license Yes, please double the percent sign. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. So, I gave the three binaries a spin: /usr/bin/preupg → fails because of lack of content in /usr/share/preupgrade. OK for now. $ /usr/bin/preupg-create-group-xml Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/preupg-create-group-xml", line 84, in <module> main() File "/usr/bin/preupg-create-group-xml", line 30, in main if not os.path.exists(args[0]): IndexError: list index out of range $ /usr/bin/preupg-xccdf-compose Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/preupg-xccdf-compose", line 24, in <module> main() File "/usr/bin/preupg-xccdf-compose", line 20, in main xccdf_compose = XCCDFCompose(args[0]) IndexError: list index out of range Not a biggie, but it would be nice if they printed a nicer error than a backtrace. -- 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