https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #3 from David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> ---
[ ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.(refer to
[ke4qqq@mba SPECS]$ rpmlint ./openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.spec
../RPMS/noarch/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-0.1.1-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
../SRPMS/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-0.1.1-2.fc17.src.rpm
./openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.spec:76: W:
mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 76)
./openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://mirror.openshift.com/pub/crankcase/source/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-0.1.1.tar.gz
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro
/usr/share/gems/doc/openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-0.1.1/ri/GearChanger/MCollectiveApplicationContainerProxy/has_app%3f-i.ri
%3f
rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro
/usr/share/gems/doc/openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-0.1.1/ri/GearChanger/MCollectiveApplicationContainerProxy/has_uid_or_gid%3f-i.ri
%3f
rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro
/usr/share/gems/doc/openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-0.1.1/ri/GearChanger/MCollectiveApplicationContainerProxy/has_embedded_app%3f-i.ri
%3f
rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro
/usr/share/gems/doc/openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-0.1.1/ri/GearChanger/MCollectiveApplicationContainerProxy/blacklisted_in_impl%3f-c.ri
%3f
rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.noarch: E:
script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gems/gems/openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-0.1.1/lib/gearchanger-mcollective-plugin/gearchanger/mcollective_application_container_proxy.rb
rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.noarch: W:
dangerous-command-in-%post chown
rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.src: E: invalid-spec-name
rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.src:76: W:
mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 76)
rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://mirror.openshift.com/pub/crankcase/source/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-0.1.1.tar.gz
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9
warnings.http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint)
A few things to fix there
[OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
[FIX] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package
<code>%{name}</code>, in the format <code>%{name}.spec</code> unless
your
package has an exemption. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name).
[OK] MUST: The package must meet the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines.
[OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines.
[OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames)
Since you are part of upstream, please consider asking them to add a
license header to the source files.
[OK] 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 must be included in
<code>%doc</code>.(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License
Text)
[OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#summary)
[OK] MUST: The spec file for the package '''MUST''' be legible. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Spec_Legibility)
[FIX] MUST: 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
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for how to deal with
this.
The URL in source has disappeared, no idea where the source is, as me
manually looking around that site didn't find it either.
[OK] MUST: The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into
binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Support)
[NA] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec
in
<code>ExcludeArch</code>. Each architecture listed in
<code>ExcludeArch</code>
'''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
<code>ExcludeArch</code> line.
(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures)
[OK] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in
<code>BuildRequires</code>, except for any that are listed in the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
section of the
Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as
<code>BuildRequires</code> is
optional. Apply common sense.
[N/A] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the <code>%find_lang</code> macro. Using
<code>%{_datadir}/locale/*</code> is strictly forbidden.(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files)
[N/A] MUST: 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 <code>%post</code> and <code>%postun</code>.
(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries)
[OK] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries)
[N/A] MUST: 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. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RelocatablePackages)
[OK] MUST: 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. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership)
[OK] MUST: 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)(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles)
[FIX] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions)
You should be setting permissions in the %files section IMO, not in
the %post.
[FIX] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros)
Last section of the %file doesn't use macros, why?
[OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent)
[N/A] MUST: 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).
(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation)
[OK] MUST: 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. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation)
[N/A] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages)
[N/A] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries)
[N/A] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix)
must go in
a -devel package. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages)
[N/A] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: <code>Requires:
%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} </code> (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage)
[N/A] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.(refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries)
[N/A] MUST: 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. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop)
[OK] MUST: 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
<code>filesystem</code> or <code>man</code> 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. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership)
[OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. (refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilenameEncoding)
Why are you chmoding/chowning in %post?
Why are you effectively creating the content for
gearchanger-mcollective-plugin.rb in the spec file?
--
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
