https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359234 gryfrev8-redhat.com-rjmco@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |christos.triantafyllidis@gm | |ail.com Whiteboard| |AwaitingSubmitter Flags| |needinfo?(christos.triantaf | |yllidis@xxxxxxxxx) --- Comment #2 from gryfrev8-redhat.com-rjmco@xxxxxxxxxx --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== [!]: The scriptlet in %post and %preun need to return exit 0, `/usr/bin/auter --disable` may return a different exit codes, which need to be overriden. Reference: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Syntax [!]: auter creates /run/auter/auter.pid or /var/run/auter/auter.pid which may exist when removing the package. This file should not be left behind when uninstalling. A %ghost line should be added for these on the %files section and touch included on %install. Reference: http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html#S3-RPM-INSIDE-FLIST-GHOST-DIRECTIVE Generic: [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/auter, /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d Discussion: `%dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}` is missing from %files [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. Discussion: auter's custom scripts are stored under /var/lib/auter. "/var/lib's hierarchy holds state information pertaining to an application or the system. State information is data that programs modify while they run, and that pertains to one specific host. Users must never need to modify files in /var/lib to configure a package's operation." I do not see any functionality in auter to produce these scripts and therefore I can only assume that these would either be installed through other packages/plugins or produced by the user. In case these are installed through plugin/packages a suitable place to store them would be under /usr/share/auter hierarchy. On the other hand if the user is expected to produce these scripts then they should be stored under /etc/auter [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Discussion: /usr/bin/yum should be changed to the actual package it requires. This is, dnf if fedora 18+ or yum otherwise. Reference: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Dependencies [!]: 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. [!]: Permissions on files are set properly. Discussion: The guidelines suggest that cronjob files should be given 0640 permissions. Reference: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CronFiles?rd=Packaging/CronFiles [?]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Discussion: %{_rundir} could be used in-place of /run, but this is not a fail, just a suggestion. "Packagers are strongly encouraged to use macros instead of hard-coded directory names. However, in situations where the macro is longer than the path it represents, or situations where the packager feels it is cleaner to use the actual path, the packager is permitted to use the actual path instead of the macro." Reference: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Discussion: auter Requires: /etc/cron.d instead of crontabs This is not a Pass nor a Fail, merely a suggestion to follow convention as the crontabs packages Requires: /etc/cron.d Reference: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CronFiles?rd=Packaging/CronFiles [?]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Discussion: systemd-devel does not appear to be necessary. Here are some successful scratch builds without it: f23 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15064653 f24 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15064680 f25 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15064686 rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15064655 epel7 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15064656 dist-6E-epel-build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15072485 [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". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1359234-auter/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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 is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [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 1 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: 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 ===== [!]: The packaged manual page states version 0.5 although version 0.6 is being patched. This can easily be worked around by regenerating the man page with help2man and the provided include file. help2man --include=auter.help2man --no-info ./auter > auter.man This also infringes on the use of pre-generated code. "It is suggested, but not required, that such code be regenerated as part of the build process." Reference: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Use_of_pregenerated_code [?]: %doc is not required for files under %{_mandir} and it is conventional to do it without it Reference: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Manpages [?]: Consider adding the NEWS file from upstream to the package to the documentation. 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. [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. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Discussion: The `install` command executions in %install should use the `-p` flag to preserve the files' timestamps. Reference: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps [x]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [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: auter-0.6-2.fc26.noarch.rpm auter-0.6-2.fc26.src.rpm auter.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee auter.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib auter.noarch: W: non-ghost-in-run /run/auter auter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Discussion: (see below) Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- auter.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee auter.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib auter.noarch: W: non-ghost-in-run /run/auter 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Discussion: I agree with Christos that all warnings can be ignored and so does FESCo. Reference: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/525 Reference: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/var-run-tmpfs Requires -------- auter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh /etc/cron.d /usr/bin/yum config(auter) Provides -------- auter: auter config(auter) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rackerlabs/auter/archive/0.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 06956767c4ba96e451385e54ed722ec8fab94148a7765d695d50c972bc813d69 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 06956767c4ba96e451385e54ed722ec8fab94148a7765d695d50c972bc813d69 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1359234 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 -- 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