https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485458 --- Comment #22 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks so much for clearing out all of the important rpmlint issues (even if some of them were pretty trivial). We're finally close enough to the end that I'm posting my full review, though there are still a few things that need to be sorted out. Please note the problems both with MUST and SHOULD: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [!]: 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. COPYING is available in tarball but not installed as %license [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Since COPYING represents the overall license of the collected work, please make sure COPYING is installed as %license if the server or fuse client is installed (I'm not sure if either are supposed to Require: orangefs) [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/orangefs/design, /usr/share/doc/orangefs, /usr/share/doc/orangefs/coding, /usr/share/doc/orangefs/random You do need to own these documentation directories [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Rpmlint was run, and all major warnings have been fixed, but I'm still uncomfortable with the script-without-shebang error we're seeing with the linker script. I believe this is because the linker script is executable when it shouldn't be. I am not an expert on linker scripts, so this opinion is based on the fact that the other linker scripts on my system are not executable. [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. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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 [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in orangefs-server, orangefs-fuse Is this intended? [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Please write a short (few word) justification for the patches [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Documentation install is done without preserving timestamps [!]: Description is descriptive. I'd love to see something a bit more detailed than a single line, if that's possible [!]: Spec file doesn't contain unnecessary sections. There is a commented out %post script for the server that should be removed [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [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
