https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332607 --- Comment #5 from James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== * Unowned created directory /etc/logrotate.d * Missing requires on logrotate - Since it has a logrotate configuration it needs a Requires on logrotate * Documentation in /usr (%{_gap_dir}) - This is standard for GAP packages as it's used for runtime online docs * Deletes the user it creates - userdel in %postun is not permitted: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups#Allocation_Strategies * Cannot test "functions correctly" - Assuming works by %check results and clean upstream build ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/1332607 -gap-pkg-scscp/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/logrotate.d [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. [-]: 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. [!]: 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]: 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 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]: 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 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 ===== 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). [?]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gap-pkg-scscp-2.1.4-2.fc25.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-scscp-2.1.4-2.fc25.src.rpm gap-pkg-scscp.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-scscp/GPL gap-pkg-scscp.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun userdel gap-pkg-scscp.src: W: strange-permission gapd.sh 755 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- gap-pkg-scscp.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-scscp/GPL gap-pkg-scscp.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun userdel 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- gap-pkg-scscp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(gap-pkg-scscp) gap-core gap-pkg-io gap-pkg-openmath shadow-utils systemd Provides -------- gap-pkg-scscp: config(gap-pkg-scscp) gap-pkg-scscp Source checksums ---------------- http://www.gap-system.org/pub/gap/gap4/tar.bz2/packages/scscp-2.1.4.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3e8db26d29daa4114c2f93594eeacea8362672df43896c0f48d4c64d20e8aa5c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3e8db26d29daa4114c2f93594eeacea8362672df43896c0f48d4c64d20e8aa5c Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1332607 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 ===== Results ===== Package is NOT APPROVED at this time. Blockers to fix are the missing requires on logrotate and the userdel in %postun Note that the openssh package does not remove the ssh user: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/openssh.git/tree/openssh.spec#n732 -- 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