https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451134 Garrett Holmstrom <gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Eh, as long as I'm here I might as well finish the review off. Sorry, Fabio. Mandatory review guidelines: ok - rpmlint output: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nodm -> nod, node, nods W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logout -> lo gout, lo-gout, log out W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart W: no-manual-page-for-binary lightdm-autologin-greeter ok - Spec file name matches base package name ok - License is acceptable (MIT) ok - License field in spec is correct The upstream project is a derivative of a GPLv3+ project ok - License files included in package if included in source package ok - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed ok - Spec written in American English ok - Spec is legible ok - Sources match upstream SHA256 unless altered to fix permissibility issues Theirs: c0b0be8d5d59cd44f7f4e52ab1bd27c985a8263bc6b2bcd1510e9a100a113214 Yours: c0b0be8d5d59cd44f7f4e52ab1bd27c985a8263bc6b2bcd1510e9a100a113214 ok - Build succeeds on at least one primary arch ok - Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + justification ok - BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary -- - Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/* -- - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files ok - No bundled libs -- - Relocatability is justified -- - Package owns all directories it creates ok - No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files ok - File permissions are sane ok - Package contains permissible code or content -- - Large docs go in -doc subpackage -- - %doc files not required at runtime -- - Static libs go in -static package or virtual Provides -- - Development files go in -devel package -- - -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa ok - No .la files -- - GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install -- - File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification ok - File names are valid UTF-8 Optional review guidelines: -- - Query upstream about including missing license files -- - Translations of description, summary ok - Builds in mock ok - Builds on all arches -- - Scriptlets are sane -- - Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible -- - .pc file subpackage placement is sensible ok - No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin -- - Include man pages if available Naming guidelines: ok - Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+ ok - Package names are sane ok - No naming conflicts ok - Version is sane ok - Version does not contain ~ ok - Release is sane ok - %dist tag ok - Case used only when necessary -- - Package names follow applicable language/addon rules Packaging guidelines: ok - Useful without external bits ok - No kmods -- - Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep ok - Sources contain only redistributable code or content -- - Pre-generated code contains original sources ok - Spec format is sane -- - noarch package with unported deps has correct ExclusiveArch -- - Arch-specific sources/patches are applied, not included, conditionally ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target -- - %{_prefix}/lib only used for multilib-exempt packages -- - Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run ok - No files under /srv, /usr/local, /home -- - Files under /opt constrained to an approved /opt/fedora subdir -- - File dependencies not broken by /usr move ok - No BuildRoot, Group, %clean, Packager, Vendor, Copyright, Prereq ok - Summary does not end in a period ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary -- - Recommends, Suggests, Supplements, Enhances are sane ok - No boolean dependencies ok - Automatic Requires, Provides filtered if necessary ok - BuildRequires lack %{_isa} -- - BuildRequires: pkgconfig(foo) where necessary ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc ok - Relative path %doc files and %_pkgdocdir not mixed ok - Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x) ok - Changelog in a prescribed format -- - Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc -- - Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise -- - PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs -- - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified -- - Shared libs are versioned ok - No static executables (except OCaml) ok - System libraries used when supported by upstream -- - Bundled libraries have Provides, link to upstream refusal to unbundle ok - No bundled fonts -- - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs -- - Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config ok - No config files under /usr -- - Third party package manager configs acceptable, only in %_docdir -- - Per-product configs handled correctly -- - No init scripts ok - .desktop files are sane -- - desktop-file-install/validate run on .desktop files, as appropriate ok - No desktop-file-install --vendor on >= F19 -- - AppData files included if possible ok - Spec uses macros consistently ok - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate -- - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed -- - %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work ok - Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time ok - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir -- - SCL macros limited to SCL-specific packages -- - Macro files go under %_rpmconfigdir/macros.d or %_sysconfdir/rpm -- - Macro files named macros.%name -- - Macro files not marked with %config ok - Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs -- - %global, not %define -- - Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it -- - Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel -- - Log file locations are sane -- - Log files are rotated ok - File ops preserve timestamps -- - Parallel make -- - Scriptlets write only to allowed locations -- - %pretrans written in lua -- - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) -- - Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www -- - Conflicts are justified -- - Patches have appropriate commentary -- - Patches not applied directly from RPM_SOURCE_DIR -- - Available test suites executed in %check -- - sysctl.d files applied in %post with %sysctl_apply -- - binfmt.d files applied in %post with %binfmt_apply -- - tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock -- - Package renaming/replacement handled correctly -- - IPv6 enabled if supported and IPv4 remains functional -- - Changelogs for CVE fixes mention CVE numbers ok - Package builds without network access -- - Dependency bootstrapping handled correctly -- - TLS-using code follows crypto policies (See Packaging:CryptoPolicies) Python guidelines: ok - Runtime Requires correct Automatic dependency on /usr/bin/pythonX pulls correct interpreter in ok - BuildRequires: python2-devel and/or python3-devel -- - Python 2 modules Provide: python2-* -- - Python 3 modules Provide: python3-* -- - Main python version modules Provide: python-* -- - Spec uses versioned path macros -- - All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts ok - INSTALLED_FILES not used for %files list -- - Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated -- - Bytecode only optimized with appropriate optimization levels -- - .py not under site-libs byte-compiled against correct runtimes -- - Non-split packages named python2-* and python3-* ok - Unversioned executables use OS-preferred runtime when possible -- - Versioned executables provided with both -X and -X.Y suffixes -- - Eggs built from source -- - Eggs do not download deps during build -- - Compat packages use easy_install -m to avoid conflicts -- - At least one version of each module is importable w/o version -- - Provides/Requires properly filtered -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
