[Bug 1190269] Review Request: openstack-barbican - Secrets as a Service

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190269

Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+
                   |needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. |
                   |com)                        |



--- Comment #22 from Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Only small change before importing the package
%doc LICENSE => %license LICENSE
For El6, you'd need the following macros as fallback: %{!?_licensedir:%global
license %%doc}

I hereby approve this package into Fedora Packages Collection. Please submit a
SCM
request.

I also suggest that you add apevec as owner of your package.



Package Review
==============

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


===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
     (v2.0)". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /home/haikel/1190269-openstack-barbican/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /etc/barbican/vassals
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd,
     /usr/lib/systemd/system, /etc/logrotate.d, /etc/barbican,
     /etc/barbican/vassals
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[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 61440 bytes in 3 files.
[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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python-
     barbican , openstack-barbican-api , openstack-barbican-worker
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %{?release_number: %define
     milestone 0b%{release_number}}, %{?milestone: %define
     version_milestone .%{milestone}}, %{?release_number: %define
     release_version %{release_name}-%{release_number}},
     %{!?release_version: %define release_version %{release_name}}
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.

===== 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: openstack-barbican-2014.2-6.fc24.noarch.rpm
          python-barbican-2014.2-6.fc24.noarch.rpm
          openstack-barbican-api-2014.2-6.fc24.noarch.rpm
          openstack-barbican-worker-2014.2-6.fc24.noarch.rpm
          openstack-barbican-2014.2-6.fc24.src.rpm
openstack-barbican.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passphrases
-> pass phrases, pass-phrases, paraphrases
openstack-barbican.noarch: E: incoherent-logrotate-file
/etc/logrotate.d/barbican-api
openstack-barbican.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary barbican-db-manage

(dropped false-positive warnings as the output is too long for bugzilla)

openstack-barbican-worker.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate
['/var/log/barbican']
openstack-barbican-worker.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary barbican-worker
openstack-barbican.noarch: E: incoherent-logrotate-file
/etc/logrotate.d/barbican-api
openstack-barbican.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary barbican-db-manage
openstack-barbican-api.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 806 warnings.



Requires
--------
python-barbican (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python-alembic
    python-babel
    python-crypto
    python-cryptography
    python-eventlet
    python-iso8601
    python-jsonschema
    python-kombu
    python-netaddr
    python-oslo-config
    python-oslo-messaging
    python-paste
    python-paste-deploy
    python-pbr
    python-pecan
    python-six
    python-sqlalchemy
    python-stevedore
    python-webob

openstack-barbican-worker (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/python2
    openstack-barbican-api
    python-barbican

openstack-barbican (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/python2
    config(openstack-barbican)
    python-barbican
    shadow-utils
    systemd
    uwsgi
    uwsgi-plugin-python

openstack-barbican-api (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    config(openstack-barbican-api)
    python-barbican



Provides
--------
python-barbican:
    python-barbican

openstack-barbican-worker:
    openstack-barbican-worker

openstack-barbican:
    config(openstack-barbican)
    openstack-barbican

openstack-barbican-api:
    config(openstack-barbican-api)
    openstack-barbican-api



Source checksums
----------------
https://launchpad.net/barbican/juno/2014.2/+download/barbican-2014.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
177c6fcb21f927afa50b578b9ebdc4579b7b396b378b123991a41920aae1bfa8
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
177c6fcb21f927afa50b578b9ebdc4579b7b396b378b123991a41920aae1bfa8


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1190269 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

-- 
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]