https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489668 Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11) <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11) <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - You need to post a link to the SRPM, not instruction on how to build it, otherwise we can't run fedora-review directly on the bug. - Similarly, you need to post a direct link to the spec. - You need to close the other bug as duplicate of this one if it's a stalled review. - The title of the bug should be: "Review Request: slurm - HPC cluster management and job scheduling" Otherwise you'll have an error message when trying to create the repo with fedrepo-req. So please edit the bug title. - You need to remove %defattr(-,root,root,-) in the %files sections, it's not used anymore. - This needs to be removed too: >%clean >rm -rf %{buildroot} - This is not needed: >Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig >Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig - Don't use: >Requires(post): systemd >Requires(preun): systemd >Requires(postun): systemd But use the special macro: %{?systemd_requires} BuildRequires: systemd See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd - Replace make %{?_smp_mflags} with the macro %make_build - Replace make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} with the macro %make_install - Use pkgconfig when you can for the -devel BR: BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gtk+-2.0) BuildRequires: hdf5-devel BuildRequires: pkgconfig(hwloc) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libfreeipmi) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libcurl) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(lua) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(mariadb) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(munge) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(ncurses) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(openssl) BuildRequires: pam-devel BuildRequires: pmix-devel BuildRequires: readline-devel BuildRequires: pkgconfig(librrd) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(zlib) - Not everything is under GPLv2, some parts are BSD: BSD (2 clause) -------------- slurm-17.02.7/src/common/log.c slurm-17.02.7/src/common/log.h BSD (unspecified) ----------------- slurm-17.02.7/src/common/uthash/LICENSE slurm-17.02.7/src/common/uthash/uthash.h It should be reflected in the License: field - If there are GUI app (in slurm-gui) they must have a Desktop file. - You need to add: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`perl -V:version`"; echo $version)) for your Perl dependent subpackages. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "zlib/libpng", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* GPL (with incorrect FSF address)", "ISC", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)", "PostgreSQL GPL (v2 or later)". 1084 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/slurm/review- slurm/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/.build-id/c5, /usr/lib64/perl5, /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto, /usr/lib/.build- id/a8, /usr/lib/.build-id/ec, /usr/lib/.build-id/2c, /usr/lib/.build- id/90, /usr/lib/.build-id/a9, /usr/lib/.build-id/7b, /etc/slurm, /usr/lib/.build-id/d0, /usr/lib/.build-id/ab, /etc/logrotate.d, /usr/lib64/security, /usr/lib64/slurm, /usr/lib/.build-id/4f, /usr/lib /.build-id/ad, /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl, /usr/lib/.build-id/c6, /usr/lib/.build-id/d5, /usr/lib/.build-id/76 [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: 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. [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. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 542720 bytes in 8 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 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 Perl: [!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) missing? ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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 slurm- devel , slurm-doc , slurm-gui , slurm-libs , slurm-plugins , slurm- plugins-auth_none , slurm-plugins-lua , slurm-plugins-munge , slurm- plugins-mysql , slurm-plugins-pbs , slurm-plugins-rrdtool , slurm- slurmdbd , slurm-contribs , slurm-openlava , slurm-perlapi , slurm- plugins-pam_slurm , slurm-torque , slurm-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4229120 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. -- 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
