[Bug 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249



--- Comment #3 from Martin Krizek <mkrizek@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Jiri Kulda from comment #1)
> 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have
>      unknown license. 
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [x]: 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.
> [x]: 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.
> [x]: 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.
>      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 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]: 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
> 
> 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:
> [x]: 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).
> [x]: Package functions as described.
> [x]: Latest version is packaged.
> [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> [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.
> [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.
> [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).
> 
> 
> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: resultsdb-1.1.16-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
>           resultsdb-1.1.16-2.fc22.src.rpm
> resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
> /etc/resultsdb/settings.py.example
> resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/resultsdb/alembic.ini
> resultsdb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resultsdb
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
> /etc/resultsdb/settings.py.example
> resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/resultsdb/alembic.ini
> resultsdb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resultsdb
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
> 
> 
> 
> Requires
> --------
> resultsdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>     /usr/bin/python2
>     fedmsg
>     python(abi)
>     python-alembic
>     python-flask
>     python-flask-login
>     python-flask-restful
>     python-flask-sqlalchemy
>     python-flask-wtf
>     python-iso8601
>     python-six
>     python-sqlalchemy
>     python-wtforms
> 
> 
> 
> Provides
> --------
> resultsdb:
>     resultsdb
> 
> 
> 
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/releases/resultsdb/resultsdb-1.1.16.
> tar.gz :
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
> 8faee45b65b74e274e7ec06ab5a4c47918361a29342c6074249f1f9c0bb4d02f
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> 8faee45b65b74e274e7ec06ab5a4c47918361a29342c6074249f1f9c0bb4d02f
> 
> 
> Comments
> --------
> - Requirements in requirements.txt contains: package == version. Shouldn't
> be it like >= or it's working only with one version? Cause in spec are all
> Requires with >= 
> 
Yeah, that's intentional. We use requirements.txt just for development purposes
for installing in virtualenv.

> - Missing parameters for preventing timestamps in %install section
> 
> - If settings.py.example is a configuration file than it should be installed
> in /etc/* without .example suffix

Thanks for the review!

Updated version:
Spec URL: https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/specs/resultsdb.spec
SRPM URL:
https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/srpms/resultsdb-1.1.16-3.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]