https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321455 Tomas Hozza <thozza@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jv+fedora@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(jv+fedora@fcelda. | |cz) --- Comment #1 from Tomas Hozza <thozza@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /var/lib/kresd/root.keys See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles - I think this is because %files section contains line: %attr(755,kresd,kresd) %{_sharedstatedir}/kresd but should instead contain %attr(755,kresd,kresd) %dir %{_sharedstatedir}/kresd - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. - Consider using "-p" option when calling install command - Files outside of /usr SHOULD be owned by root:root (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions) - Please explain why is UID and GID of files and dirs in /etc and /var/lib/ set to kresd. Usually other DNS daemons have files installed in these locations with UID root and GID specific to that daemon. Please consider changing the UID of files and directories to root. - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in knot- resolver-devel - %{?isa} is used instead of %{?_isa}. Please fix this. - Once you resolve issues with building the documentation, please package is as well, because currently there is no man page for the daemon. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. - This is OK, since these are just modules not in ld path! [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 66 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/thozza/tmp/1321455 -knot-resolver/licensecheck.txt - This is OK, since these are pieces of code with less strict license as GPLv3. Most of them are from CCAN repository. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. - Not using -Wp, but it is justified. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. - Only small snippets from CCAN are included, these are not and can not be packaged as separate software in Fedora. Direct use of the code is expected. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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). - %{alphatag} macro could be used also in Release, since it is used in Source0 [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 4 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. [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 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]: Dist tag is present. [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 knot- resolver-devel - %{?isa} is used instead of %{?_isa} [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments - creation of tarball is documented [x]: 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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. - Consider using "-p" option when calling install command [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: knot-resolver-1.0.0-0.1.beta3.fc25.x86_64.rpm knot-resolver-devel-1.0.0-0.1.beta3.fc25.x86_64.rpm knot-resolver-1.0.0-0.1.beta3.fc25.src.rpm knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/kresd kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/kresd kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/kresd kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/kresd kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/kresd/root.keys kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/kresd/root.keys kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/kresd/config kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/kresd/config kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kresd knot-resolver-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib knot-resolver-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation knot-resolver.src: W: strange-permission config 640 knot-resolver.src: W: invalid-url Source0: knot-resolver-1.0.0-beta3.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. - FILES OUTSIDE OF /usr SHOULD BE OWNED BY root:root (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions) Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: knot-resolver-debuginfo-1.0.0-0.1.beta3.fc25.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/kresd/config kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/kresd/config kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/kresd/root.keys kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/kresd/root.keys kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/kresd kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/kresd kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/kresd kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/kresd kresd knot-resolver.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kresd knot-resolver-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib knot-resolver-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Requires -------- knot-resolver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(knot-resolver) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdnssec.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libhiredis.so.0.13()(64bit) libknot.so.2()(64bit) libkres.so.1()(64bit) libluajit-5.1.so.2()(64bit) libmemcached.so.11()(64bit) libmemcachedutil.so.2()(64bit) libnsl.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libuv.so.1()(64bit) libzscanner.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) shadow-utils systemd knot-resolver-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config knot-resolver libkres.so.1()(64bit) Provides -------- knot-resolver: config(knot-resolver) knot-resolver knot-resolver(x86-64) libkres.so.1()(64bit) knot-resolver-devel: knot-resolver-devel knot-resolver-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libkres) Unversioned so-files -------------------- knot-resolver: /usr/lib64/kdns_modules/cachectl.so knot-resolver: /usr/lib64/kdns_modules/hints.so knot-resolver: /usr/lib64/kdns_modules/kmemcached.so knot-resolver: /usr/lib64/kdns_modules/redis.so knot-resolver: /usr/lib64/kdns_modules/stats.so - THIS IS OK, SINCE THESE ARE JUST MODULES FOR THE DAEMON Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 1321455 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx