https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331818 Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Looks really good. Minor nits: I would do: # For non-releases %global commit 5440d34a550aa155dc9245a3f8f9d7f09948695d and then comment out like: #global commit 5440d34a550aa155dc9245a3f8f9d7f09948695d when not using. Git snapshots should have "git" in the release string: Release: 4%{?shortcommit:.git%shortcommit}%{?dist} See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages personally, I would keep the version name of the downloaded git snapshots, but that's preference. Looks like upstream has fixed the rpmlint setgroups issue. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/singularity-2.0/1331818-singularity/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [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). [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 7 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]: 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]: Package uses hardened build flags if required to. Note: suid files: sexec [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [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. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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: [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools Needed for EL5 [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: singularity-2.0-4.el7.x86_64.rpm singularity-2.0-4.el7.src.rpm singularity.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/libexec/singularity/sexec root 04755L singularity.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/singularity/sexec 04755L singularity.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary singularity singularity.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary run-singularity 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: singularity-debuginfo-2.0-4.el7.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- singularity.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/libexec/singularity/sexec root 04755L singularity.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/singularity/sexec 04755L singularity.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary singularity singularity.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary run-singularity singularity-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- singularity (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh config(singularity) libc.so.6()(64bit) ncurses-base rtld(GNU_HASH) strace Provides -------- singularity: config(singularity) singularity singularity(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gmkurtzer/singularity/archive/2.0.tar.gz#/singularity-2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6e58ec2932df26a5401485f2235f6309490bd5abeec97b6bd70c74fd55aaa11a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6e58ec2932df26a5401485f2235f6309490bd5abeec97b6bd70c74fd55aaa11a AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: singularity-2.0/configure.ac:32 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1331818 Buildroot used: epel-7-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx