https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714350 --- Comment #1 from Honza Horak <hhorak@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - systemd_post is invoked in %post, but no systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun is invoked for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in repmgr See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets - There is one patch with no comment why it is used. Also, the patch used in the patch (/etc/repmgr/10/repmgr.conf) is probably not the best, as config files in Fedora are usually packaged without the version, and the rest of the package is also not installed in more than one version, so I'd suggest to change the default config file to /etc/repmgr/repmgr.conf, in the best case it could be set by build-time-configured variable. - Creating the var log in %pre/%post sections looks like not really the best thing to do. I'd suggest to do something like this: %attr(0700,postgres,postgres) %dir %{logfiledir} - Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}%{extra_version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: 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. - this is ok, as the unversioned file is a plugin [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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 40960 bytes in 3 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]: %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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}%{extra_version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://repmgr.org/download/repmgr-4.2.tar.bz2 See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in repmgr [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. - There is one patch with no comment why it is used. Also, the patch used in the patch (/etc/repmgr/10/repmgr.conf) is probably not the best, as config files in Fedora are usually packaged without the version, and the rest of the package is also not installed in more than one version, so I'd suggest to change the default config file to /etc/repmgr/repmgr.conf, in the best case it could be set by build-time-configured variable. [!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. - Creating the var log in %pre/%post sections like "if [ ! -x /var/log/repmgr ]" looks not really the best thing to do. I'd suggest to do something like this: %attr(0700,postgres,postgres) %dir %{logfiledir} [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: 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. - Probably not available by upstream, not a blocker [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]: 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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: repmgr-4.2-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm repmgr-debuginfo-4.2-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm repmgr-debugsource-4.2-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm repmgr-4.2-2.fc29.src.rpm repmgr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US failover -> fail over, fail-over, spillover repmgr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US switchover -> switch over, switch-over, switcher repmgr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base repmgr.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run /var/run/repmgr repmgr.x86_64: E: non-readable /var/run/repmgr 0 repmgr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repmgr repmgr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repmgrd repmgr.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre chown repmgr.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown repmgr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US failover -> fail over, fail-over, spillover repmgr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US switchover -> switch over, switch-over, switcher repmgr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base repmgr.src:56: W: macro-in-comment %build repmgr.src:87: W: configure-without-libdir-spec repmgr.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://repmgr.org/download/repmgr-4.2.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: repmgr-debuginfo-4.2-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory repmgr-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://repmgr.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> repmgr-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://repmgr.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> repmgr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US failover -> fail over, fail-over, spillover repmgr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US switchover -> switch over, switch-over, switcher repmgr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base repmgr.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://repmgr.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> repmgr.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run /var/run/repmgr repmgr.x86_64: E: non-readable /var/run/repmgr 0 repmgr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repmgr repmgr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repmgrd repmgr.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre chown repmgr.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- repmgr: /usr/lib64/pgsql/repmgr.so Requires -------- repmgr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /sbin/ldconfig config(repmgr) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpq.so.5()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) postgresql-server rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd systemd-sysv repmgr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): repmgr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- repmgr: config(repmgr) repmgr repmgr(x86-64) repmgr-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) repmgr-debuginfo repmgr-debuginfo(x86-64) repmgr-debugsource: repmgr-debugsource repmgr-debugsource(x86-64) -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
