https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276 --- Comment #33 from Paulo Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== 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: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 333 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pcpa/1344276-gdeploy/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 2 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]: 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: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [?]: 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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gdeploy- doc [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?]: %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: gdeploy-2.0.2-13.noarch.rpm gdeploy-doc-2.0.2-13.noarch.rpm gdeploy-2.0.2-13.src.rpm gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/gluster-replace-node /usr/bin/env bash gdeploy.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/modules/gdeploy/README.md gdeploy.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/modules/gdeploy/__init__.py gdeploy.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/plugins/callback/gdeploy.py gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/blacklist_all_disks.sh /usr/bin/env bash gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/disable-gluster-hooks.sh /usr/bin/env bash gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/disable-multipath.sh /usr/bin/env bash gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/grafton-sanity-check.sh /usr/bin/env bash gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/nuke-bricks/nuke-bricks.sh /usr/bin/env bash -u gdeploy.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/nuke-bricks/nuke-bricks.sh 644 /usr/bin/env bash -u gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/replace-node/gluster-replace-node /usr/bin/env bash gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/replace-node/replace_prep.sh /usr/bin/env bash gdeploy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gluster-replace-node gdeploy-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C gdeploy documentation gdeploy-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gdeploy/html/.buildinfo gdeploy.src: W: file-size-mismatch gdeploy-2.0.2.tar.gz = 1951206, https://github.com/gluster/gdeploy/archive/v2.0.2.tar.gz#/gdeploy-2.0.2.tar.gz = 1951712 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- gdeploy-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C gdeploy documentation gdeploy-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gdeploy/html/.buildinfo gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/replace-node/gluster-replace-node /usr/bin/env bash gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/nuke-bricks/nuke-bricks.sh /usr/bin/env bash -u gdeploy.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/nuke-bricks/nuke-bricks.sh 644 /usr/bin/env bash -u gdeploy.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/modules/gdeploy/__init__.py gdeploy.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/plugins/callback/gdeploy.py gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/grafton-sanity-check.sh /usr/bin/env bash gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/disable-multipath.sh /usr/bin/env bash gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/replace-node/replace_prep.sh /usr/bin/env bash gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/disable-gluster-hooks.sh /usr/bin/env bash gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/gluster-replace-node /usr/bin/env bash gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/blacklist_all_disks.sh /usr/bin/env bash gdeploy.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/modules/gdeploy/README.md gdeploy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gluster-replace-node 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- gdeploy-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gdeploy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python /usr/bin/python2 PyYAML ansible lvm2 python(abi) python2 Provides -------- gdeploy-doc: gdeploy-doc gdeploy: gdeploy Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gluster/gdeploy/archive/v2.0.2.tar.gz#/gdeploy-2.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cf6c600ba97fd32c183e08efa2c96ed9762c5523cf89372662ce0bc81e61ca8c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58088f0c8dc0d2496f7d8a52bfb4156b874927be68b849e8a63ed6e659e4d44b However, diff -r shows no differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1344276 Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 --- AFAIK there is no policy to the format you used for the doc subpackage, that is, %package and %files in a "single chunk". Personally, I used this pattern before for some packages with a lot of subpackages. I believe the package is good and most issues have been reasoned, but will ask for two extra changes before approving the package and sponsoring you: o Use the same tarball in the srpm and upstream. I believe the upstream tarball was regenerated, thus difference checksum, as contents are the same. o Do a minor license breakdown about the installed GPLv3 files. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios Otherwise, it should not be required to also install a GPLv3 license file. -- 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
