https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858060
Darryl L. Pierce <dpie...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dw...@infradead.org
Component|Package Review |0xFFFF
Assignee|dpie...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org
Flags|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #1 from Darryl L. Pierce <dpie...@redhat.com> ---
Generally good, just a few issues to fix.
LEGEND: X=Met, !=Not met, ?=Not a blocker but should be fixed
=============================================================
[X] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
mcpierce@mcpierce-laptop:review $ ll
total 836
-rw-rw-r--. 1 mcpierce mcpierce 184796 Sep 17 18:37
qpid-snmpd-1.0.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
-rw-rw-r--. 1 mcpierce mcpierce 148069 Sep 18 09:49
qpid-snmpd-1.0.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
-rw-rw-r--. 1 mcpierce mcpierce 503137 Sep 18 09:49
qpid-snmpd-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
-rw-rw-r--. 1 mcpierce mcpierce 2229 Sep 17 18:38 qpid-snmpd.spec
-rw-rw-r--. 1 mcpierce mcpierce 4845 Sep 18 09:42 review
mcpierce@mcpierce-laptop:review $ rpmlint *rpm
qpid-snmpd.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/qpid-snmpd.8.gz
21: warning: macro `BI(default).' not defined (possibly missing space after
`BI')
qpid-snmpd.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/qpid-snmpd $name
qpid-snmpd.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/qpid-snmpd $name
qpid-snmpd.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/qpid-snmpd $name
qpid-snmpd.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/qpid-snmpd
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
[X] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[X] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[X] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
[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 must be included in %doc.[4]
[X] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[X] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[X] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this
task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream
URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for
how to deal with this.
[X] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
[X] MUST: 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.
[X] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[X] 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 %post and %postun. [10]
[X] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[!] 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. [13]
The two %doc files are not in proper locations, but are instead listed as being
in %{_build_dir} in the %files section.
They should instead use %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}
[X] 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)[14]
[!] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. [15]
Two different methods are used to install files in the %install section: cp and
install, with the former leaving permissions unverified.
Please use install consistently.
[!] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
1) See above note regarding the location of the license.txt and README.txt.
2) The use of the %{_build_dir} is confusing since it could be misread as an
alias for %{buildroot}. Instead, please use %{buildroot} and use "%setup -q -c
%{name}-%{version}" to explode the sources.
[X] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[X] 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). [18]
[X] 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. [18]
[X] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[19]
[X] 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 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]
[X] MUST: 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
