https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Elwell <andrew.elw...@gmail.com> ---
Rpmlint:
Warnings in rpmlint (below) are due to your description of how to generate the
tarball from source repo.
1) LICENCE - there's no indication in the script itself of the licence -
suggest you include the short apache header in it.
installed RPM:
$ rpm -q ginfo
ginfo-0.1.5-1.fc17.noarch
$ rpmlint ginfo
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings
SRPM:
$ rpmlint ./ginfo-0.1.5-1.fc16.src.rpm ginfo.src:11: W: macro-in-comment
%{name}
ginfo.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
ginfo.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ginfo-0.1.5.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warning
Review mandatory items are otherwise OK but the functionality of the script
needs some checks - There's no (adjustable) timeout on the LDAP call so if the
bdii server is unavailable then you need to wait for a default (60s) timeout in
the underlying python lib:
$ time ginfo --host bdii.scotgrid.ac.uk
Error: Can't contact the LDAP server. Please check your host.
real 1m3.186s
user 0m0.056s
sys 0m0.013s
Secondly the man page includes references to
ginfo --host bdii.host.invalid
but you'd be better using bdii.example.com (RFC 2606) as:
".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
glance are invalid."
-- you're trying to give an example of a VALID query not an invalid one!
Other than that, once you've updated the description it should be OK to go.
[OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[OK] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[OK]1 The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
[No] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
-- See 1) above -- you include the 'how to apply' part but not the licence.txt
It'd be nice to put the contents of your current LICENSE as a comment in the
start of the script and the actual apache licence txt in LICENSE.
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
must be included in %doc.[4]
[OK] The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[OK] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
[N/A] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[OK] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[N/A] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[OK] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker. [12]
[OK} A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory. [13]
[OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14]
[OK] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. [15]
[OK] Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[N/A] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
[OK] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present. [18]
[N/A] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [19]
[N/A] Development files must be in a -devel package. [20]
[N/A] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
[OK] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.[19]
[N/A] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[22]
[OK] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23]
[OK] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
