https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282903 Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #20 from Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package tested by pulling .spec file from upstream repository, updating its %{commit} value to 157f2efcb85ebe4d45ec8df4d1002e8200ca4d51, running spectool -g to downoad matching sources, and proceeding from there. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines * Verified manually. The test failed because it attempted to install the same debuginfo package twice, and dnf didn't like that. ===== 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. Packages is ASL 2.0, depends only on a BSD-licensed package. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Package's LICENSE file says ASL 2.0, and the .spec file agrees. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. * There's only one binary package. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/libexec/oci [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/libexec/oci * Since hooks under this directory will be used by both runc and docker, and neither depends on the other, this package, and others that supply plugins, probably need to provide the directory. I suggest adding a "%dir %{_libexecdir}/oci" to the %files section. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. * Makefile's invocation of the go compiler adds a build ID and uses $LDFLAGS. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. * Package does not bundle anything. [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 [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. [ ]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 2 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 %license. [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]: 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]: 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 ===== 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 oci- register-machine-debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. * Looks straightforward, haven't personally verified it. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. * Package includes no tests. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. * Files being explicitly installed are generated at build-time, and the rest are installed by RPM's macros. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint * Actually, it succeeded. [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. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.14 starting (python version = 3.5.1)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.14 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.14 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /misc/oci-machine-register/review-oci-register-machine/results/oci-register-machine-0-0.1.git157f2ef.fc24.x86_64.rpm /misc/oci-machine-register/review-oci-register-machine/results/oci-register-machine-debuginfo-0-0.1.git157f2ef.fc24.x86_64.rpm /misc/oci-machine-register/review-oci-register-machine/results/oci-register-machine-debuginfo-0-0.1.git157f2ef.fc24.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 --setopt=deltarpm=false install /misc/oci-machine-register/review-oci-register-machine/results/oci-register-machine-0-0.1.git157f2ef.fc24.x86_64.rpm /misc/oci-machine-register/review-oci-register-machine/results/oci-register-machine-debuginfo-0-0.1.git157f2ef.fc24.x86_64.rpm /misc/oci-machine-register/review-oci-register-machine/results/oci-register-machine-debuginfo-0-0.1.git157f2ef.fc24.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: oci-register-machine-0-0.1.git157f2ef.fc24.x86_64.rpm oci-register-machine-debuginfo-0-0.1.git157f2ef.fc24.x86_64.rpm oci-register-machine-0-0.1.git157f2ef.fc24.src.rpm oci-register-machine.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Golang -> Golan, Golan g, Angolan oci-register-machine.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) systemd -> systems, system, system d oci-register-machine.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Golang -> Golan, Golan g, Angolan oci-register-machine.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemd -> systems, system, system d oci-register-machine.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.1.git6863 ['0-0.1.git157f2ef.fc24', '0-0.1.git157f2ef'] oci-register-machine.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Golang -> Golan, Golan g, Angolan oci-register-machine.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) systemd -> systems, system, system d oci-register-machine.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Golang -> Golan, Golan g, Angolan oci-register-machine.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemd -> systems, system, system d 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Requires -------- oci-register-machine (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) oci-register-machine-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- oci-register-machine: oci-register-machine oci-register-machine(x86-64) oci-register-machine-debuginfo: oci-register-machine-debuginfo oci-register-machine-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/projectatomic/oci-register-machine/archive/157f2efcb85ebe4d45ec8df4d1002e8200ca4d51/oci-register-machine-157f2ef.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b7b1e7fcb05e7d702d1a1042971051463f6c0d91590eb06c859f4a0ee30a6a13 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7b1e7fcb05e7d702d1a1042971051463f6c0d91590eb06c859f4a0ee30a6a13 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n oci-register-machine Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Short version: looks good, package approved, setting package-review flag to '+'. -- 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