https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161942 Petr Špaček <pspacek@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(pemensik@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #6 from Petr Špaček <pspacek@xxxxxxx> --- Hi, here is my review. Please search for [?] and [!], there is couple of them. Besides that the auto-generated Issues section is totally confusing me, please have a look there as well to double check. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package is not relocatable. Comment: Not really an issue as it is not intended to be. - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/bind9-next/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ Huh? I can't see the problem. Can you spot it? ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory are okay. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /var/named/chroot/usr/share Seems like this one needs attention? I'm confused because this directory is not present in the built RPM. [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/logrotate.d, /var/named/chroot/usr/share Ditto. I'm confused because chroot/usr/share directory is not present in the built RPM. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Built-in zones are config but should not be touched, and are outside of /etc, so it's okay to not have (noreplace) on them. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. Provides sound reasonable, given it's alternative version of BIND. [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 808960 bytes in 31 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in bind9-next, bind9-next-chroot [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). Please see rpmlint output in COPR. It complains about E: missing-dependency-to-logrotate for logrotate Besides that, can you double check the rest, most notably W: obsolete-not-provided ? That one looks okay to me, but please double check. [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in bind9-next-libs , bind9-next-license , bind9-next-utils , bind9-next- dnssec-utils , bind9-next-devel , bind9-next-chroot , bind9-next-dlz- filesystem , bind9-next-dlz-ldap , bind9-next-dlz-mysql , bind9-next- dlz-sqlite3 I suppose this is okay because there is the -chroot variant. Can you confirm I got it right? [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. Some patches are missing justification, like -PIE with FIXME on it. Especially the -next version should ideally have no patches. Pretty please! https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_patch_guidelines [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: Sources 1, 3, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 27, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48 and 49 are not passed to gpgverify - but that's okay as they are distro files. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. Well, pass to an extent possible. Without network in Koji it's going to be just pretension of %check anyway. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. install -p should be prefered, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_timestamps [x]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define bind_export_libs isc dns isccfg irs, %define upname_compat() %if "%{name}" != "%{upname}" %if 0%{?fedora} >= 37 Provides: %1 = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} %endif Obsoletes: %1 < 32:9.17.0 Conflicts: %1 %endif, %define _configure "../configure", %define unit_prepare_build() find lib -name 'K*.key' -exec cp -uv '{}' "%{1}/{}" ';' find lib -name 'testdata' -type d -exec cp -Tav '{}' "%{1}/{}" ';' find lib -name 'testkeys' -type d -exec cp -Tav '{}' "%{1}/{}" ';', %define systemtest_prepare_build() cp -Tuav bin/tests "%{1}/bin/tests/", %define chroot_fix_devices() if [ $1 -gt 1 ]; then for DEV in "%{1}/dev"/{null,random,zero}; do if [ -e "$DEV" -a "$(/bin/stat --printf="%G %a" "$DEV")" = "root 644" ]; then /bin/chmod 0664 "$DEV" /bin/chgrp named "$DEV" fi done fi Guideline likes %global over %define. Can you improve it? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_global_preferred_over_define [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161942 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
