https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1430364 James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(james.hogarth@gma | |il.com) | --- Comment #12 from James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> --- Apologies for the delay... Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: argbash-2.4.0-0.2.spec should be argbash.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name - On import please ensure this is named appropriately - Shell script uses sed - Please add to requires to be explicit - Shell script uses grep - Please add to requires to be explicit - Latest version is 2.5.0 - Not a blocker - assume you'll be updating - The makefile installs without -p on the cp - Not a blocker - suggest upstream be notified about -p - Is /lib/argbash appropriate since it's non-binary arch independant files? - A better prefix given the nature of the files might be /usr/share/argbash - Not convinced it's a blocker as I think it still falls within FHS overall, but it is worth considering the most appropriate location for the *.m4 files and it feels to me like /usr/share is far more appropriate. ===== 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 107 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora- scm/1430364-argbash-2.4.0-0.2/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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: argbash-2.4.0-0.2.fc28.noarch.rpm argbash-2.4.0-0.2.fc28.src.rpm argbash.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib argbash.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary argbash argbash.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary argbash-1to2 argbash.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary argbash-init argbash.src:34: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib argbash.src:47: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/argbash/ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory argbash.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://argbash.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> argbash.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib argbash.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary argbash argbash.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary argbash-1to2 argbash.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary argbash-init 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- argbash (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash autoconf bash coreutils Provides -------- argbash: argbash Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/matejak/argbash/archive/2.4.0/argbash-2.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e48a19ba70cf88a5133a03f72cd9840e278676273081f5fcab03e154fad57c44 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e48a19ba70cf88a5133a03f72cd9840e278676273081f5fcab03e154fad57c44 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1430364 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 == Summary == I need some convincing on /usr/lib/argbash being the appropriate location for the *.m4 files used by argbash, especially since the makefile allows this to be relocated. It feels like this goes against the spirit of FHS, even if I agree it's not against the letter. Usually application data, as opposed to libraries that get imported or linked, go in /usr/share/<app> and the files involved feel more like that type of thing ... as a library would be sourced rather than run via a tool. Provide an argument for that pretty please? Other than that the requires should explicitly include grep and sed as argbash directly executes these. -- 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
