https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485458 --- Comment #23 from Martin Brandenburg <martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #22) > 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 Installed. > [!]: 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) They are and do now. > [!]: 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 Done. > [!]: 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. That'll make only-non-binary-in-usr-lib show up, but that's probably preferable. > [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? Fixed. > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > > Please write a short (few word) justification for the patches Okay. One of them has been submitted but not yet committed upstream. > [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. > > Documentation install is done without preserving timestamps I've changed cp to install -p -m 644. > [!]: Description is descriptive. > > I'd love to see something a bit more detailed than a single line, if > that's possible I put some more in. I can write more if you don't think it's enough. > [!]: Spec file doesn't contain unnecessary sections. > > There is a commented out %post script for the server that should be > removed Right. > [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. Then I intend to make the 2.9.7 release if this is accepted. I think the only changes I want to make upstream is the genconfig-path patch and these remaining man pages. Git: https://github.com/omnibond/orangefs-fedora Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22506890 Spec: http://dev.orangefs.org/2017/marbran/1017/orangefs.spec SRPM: http://dev.orangefs.org/2017/marbran/1017/orangefs-2.9.6-0.6.20171011svn.fc26.src.rpm -- 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
