https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838901
Jiri Popelka <jpope...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jpope...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |jpope...@redhat.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #8 from Jiri Popelka <jpope...@redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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 %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- LGPLv2.1+ isn't a correct short name. Use LGPLv2+ instead.
- client/shared/pexpect.py and frontend/shared/json_html_formatter.py are under
MIT license, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro.
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[!]: MUST Package obeys FHS.
These "FHS issues" were discussed in bug #548522. Can you make a summary here
what's been the progress since then.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
The output is quite long but most of it is about non-standard-uid/gid of
various files, which is caused by %defattr(-,autotest,autotest,-).
It was discussed in bug #548522 too.
Would it be possible to make a summary here, why is it set so ?
There's however one thing that could be fixed easily I think:
W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/autotest/client/tools/setidle.c
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[!]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
You need to obey
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#New_Packages
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Note:
If you don't aim at EPEL, then you can safely remove:
BuildRoot and python_sitelib definition, %clean section, cleaning of buildroot
in %install, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
--
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
