https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923678 aegorenk@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(pemensik@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #4 from aegorenk@xxxxxxxxxx --- [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Alternatives/ Issues: 1. License. "BSD License (two clause)" from list [1] is the most similar I can find to the provided license, it's short name should be "BSD" 2. Requires. Shouldn't the following two Requires be added? Requires(post): %{_sbindir}/update-alternatives Requires(postun): %{_sbindir}/update-alternatives 3. According to [2]: * If a package is using alternatives, the files which would otherwise conflict MUST be installed with an appropriate suffix (for example: %{_sbindir}/sendmail.postfix instead of %{_sbindir}/sendmail), the original locations MUST be touched (for example: touch %{_sbindir}/sendmail), the links set up by alternatives MUST be listed as %ghost in the file list and proper Requires: MUST be added, like in the examples below. Could you add: %install ... touch %{buildroot}%{_sbindir}/resolvconf ... %files ... %ghost %{_sbindir}/resolvconf 4. I'm not sure if it makes sense, but please consider the following: %files ... %{_libexecdir}/resolvconf/* ... ^ this code uses a generic name "resolveconf" for a directory. As far as I know at the momnent there are no other packages provides same directory, but it looks dangarous when package provides directory with this kind of generic name. I think it can cause troubles in case there'll be another package (alternative to openresolv) in future. Can this directory also be handled by alternatives system? In this case package will provide %{_libexecdir}/resolvconf.%{name}/ which will be pointed by symlink %{_libexecdir}/resolvconf/ 5. Please handle the following rpmlint warnings/errors: Rpmlint ------- Checking: openresolv-3.12.0-1.noarch.rpm openresolv-3.12.0-1.src.rpm openresolv.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause openresolv.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/resolvconf/libc.d/avahi-daemon 644 /bin/sh openresolv.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/resolvconf/libc.d/mdnsd 644 /bin/sh openresolv.src: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/eam/tmp/openresolv/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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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]: 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. Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn openresolv-3.12.0-1.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, R, Ocaml, PHP, C/C++, Java, Python, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
