https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #27 from Petr Hracek <phracek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Final URLs: Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-6.fc21.src.rpm Hopefully review is finally finished. (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #26) > 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 > Fixed > Requires: openscap%{?_isa} >= 0:1.0.8-1 > ... > Fixed > 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. > Fixed > ===== 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 > Fixed > > [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. > Fixed > [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. Fixed > > [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 Will be fixed later on > preupgrade-assistant.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary > preupg-xccdf-compose Will be fixed later on > 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. I am going to fix that after the review. -- 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