Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879757
jcqiu <jc...@myseneca.ca> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jc...@myseneca.ca
--- Comment #2 from jcqiu <jc...@myseneca.ca> ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[?]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
server, %package client
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/zyu26/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-ds-
backup/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[!]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/zyu26/rpmbuild/SRPMS
/review-ds-backup/diff.txt
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[?]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[?]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[?]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ds-backup-client-0.11.5.g536d1d6-3.fc17.noarch.rpm
ds-backup-0.11.5.g536d1d6-3.fc17.src.rpm
ds-backup-server-0.11.5.g536d1d6-3.fc17.noarch.rpm
ds-backup-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-backup.py
ds-backup-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-backup.sh
ds-backup-server.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/var/www/ds-backup/backup-available.py
ds-backup-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-postprocess.py
ds-backup-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-cleanup.sh
ds-backup-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-cleanup.py
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
--
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
