[Bug 1126990] Review Request: kimchi - SImple KVM virtualization management

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126990



--- Comment #12 from Jaromír Cápík <jcapik@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Sources used to build the package do not match the upstream source, as
  provided in the spec URL.
  Note: The link points to an html content
  Hint: Use the following link instead
  https://github.com/kimchi-project/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- License tag: LGPLv2+ is missing, MPL 2.0 is redundant
- Multiple licenses found, but the licensing breakdown is not documented
  in the spec file.
- Changelog: Missing version-release found, unexpected character found : '#',
  extra empty lines found
- Missing BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- Missing Provides: bundled(jquery-ui) = 1.10.3, bundled(jquery) = 1.10.0
- A new version has been released. Please, update.
- Patch justification/comment missing. Please, add.


===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v3
     or later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)
     LGPL (v3 or later)". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/jcapik/1126990-kimchi/licensecheck.txt
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/firewalld,
     /usr/lib/firewalld/services
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[x]: 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 20480 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 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]: 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:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[-]: 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.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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.
[-]: %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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: kimchi-1.4.0-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
          kimchi-1.4.0-2.fc20.src.rpm
kimchi.noarch: E: devel-dependency gettext-devel
kimchi.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libguestfs-tools
kimchi.noarch: W: invalid-license MPL 2.0
kimchi.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/lib/firewalld/services/kimchid.xml 0640L
kimchi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/kimchi/proxy.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
kimchi.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/kimchi/distros.d/fedora.json
kimchi.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/kimchi/nginx.conf.in
kimchi.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/kimchi/kimchi.conf
kimchi.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/kimchi/distros.d/opensuse.json
kimchi.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/kimchi/distros.d/ubuntu.json
kimchi.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/kimchi/distros.d/gentoo.json
kimchi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/kimchi/vnc.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
kimchi.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/kimchi/distros.d/debian.json
kimchi.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kimchid
kimchi.src: W: invalid-license MPL 2.0
kimchi.src:64: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/firewalld/services/kimchid.xml
kimchi.src:78: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/firewalld/services/kimchid.xml
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@vega /]# rpmlint kimchi
kimchi.noarch: E: devel-dependency gettext-devel
kimchi.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libguestfs-tools
kimchi.noarch: W: invalid-license MPL 2.0
kimchi.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/lib/firewalld/services/kimchid.xml 0640L
kimchi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/kimchi/proxy.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
kimchi.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/kimchi/distros.d/fedora.json
kimchi.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/kimchi/nginx.conf.in
kimchi.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/kimchi/kimchi.conf
kimchi.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/kimchi/distros.d/opensuse.json
kimchi.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/kimchi/distros.d/ubuntu.json
kimchi.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/kimchi/distros.d/gentoo.json
kimchi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/kimchi/vnc.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
kimchi.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/kimchi/distros.d/debian.json
kimchi.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kimchid
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 9 warnings.
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@vega /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
kimchi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python
    PyPAM
    gettext-devel
    iscsi-initiator-utils
    libguestfs-tools
    libvirt
    libvirt-python
    m2crypto
    nfs-utils
    nginx
    novnc
    pyparted
    python(abi)
    python-cheetah
    python-cherrypy
    python-ethtool
    python-imaging
    python-ipaddr
    python-jsonschema
    python-ldap
    python-libguestfs
    python-lxml
    python-psutil
    python-websockify
    qemu-kvm
    sos
    spice-html5



Provides
--------
kimchi:
    kimchi



Source checksums
----------------
http://github.com/kimchi-project/kimchi/releases/tag/1.4.0/kimchi-1.4.0.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
bce68a810bf161124ba24cc6b4f2585cc045660d2a3c3b609ae69bd6b7d145b0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
6349b9a356f558ce1d2ec46977ac2ae9ae44707743c4248914efc86b4584bda0
diff -r also reports differences


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1126990
Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, 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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]