https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022407
--- Comment #9 from Jerry James <loganje...@gmail.com> ---
Just a few minor issues, in no particular order:
1) The package owns %{_datadir}/polkit-1/actions, but that directory is already
owned by polkit, which this package requires. This package should only own
the contents of that directory, not the directory itself.
2) The files in %{_sysconfdir}/dbus-1/system.d are marked %config, but not
%config(noreplace). Is there a reason for that?
3) Please check on the script-without-shebang error reported by rpmlint below.
4) The first line of %install:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
is not needed in any supported Fedora version. Comment 3 indicates this was
already removed. It must have come back to life. :-)
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jamesjer/1022407-yumdaemon/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/polkit-1/actions(polkit, systemd)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/dbus-1/system.d/*
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 10 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: 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
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: yumdaemon-0.9.2-3.fc21.noarch.rpm
python3-yumdaemon-0.9.2-3.fc21.noarch.rpm
python-yumdaemon-0.9.2-3.fc21.noarch.rpm
yumdaemon-0.9.2-3.fc21.src.rpm
yumdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dbus -> Bus, D bus, Dubs
yumdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dbus -> Bus, D bus,
Dubs
yumdaemon.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.baseurl.YumSystem.conf
python3-yumdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) api -> pi, ape, apt
python3-yumdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi,
ape, apt
python3-yumdaemon.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-yumdaemon.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/yumdaemon/__init__.py
python-yumdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) api -> pi, ape, apt
python-yumdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi,
ape, apt
python-yumdaemon.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-yumdaemon.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/yumdaemon/__init__.py
yumdaemon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dbus -> Bus, D bus, Dubs
yumdaemon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dbus -> Bus, D bus, Dubs
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python3-yumdaemon python-yumdaemon yumdaemon
python3-yumdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) api -> pi, ape, apt
python3-yumdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi,
ape, apt
python3-yumdaemon.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-yumdaemon.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/yumdaemon/__init__.py
python-yumdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) api -> pi, ape, apt
python-yumdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi,
ape, apt
python-yumdaemon.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-yumdaemon.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/yumdaemon/__init__.py
yumdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dbus -> Bus, D bus, Dubs
yumdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dbus -> Bus, D bus,
Dubs
yumdaemon.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.baseurl.YumSystem.conf
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
python3-yumdaemon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
python3-gobject
yumdaemon
python-yumdaemon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pygobject3
python(abi)
yumdaemon
yumdaemon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/python
config(yumdaemon)
dbus-python
policycoreutils-python
polkit
yum
Provides
--------
python3-yumdaemon:
python3-yumdaemon
python-yumdaemon:
python-yumdaemon
yumdaemon:
config(yumdaemon)
yumdaemon
Source checksums
----------------
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/y/u/yumex/yumdaemon-0.9.2.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
efc6e3aec324a25de76ddbd82419d0e0efdd0ac73e45b24b8722aa4f34ddcbc6
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
efc6e3aec324a25de76ddbd82419d0e0efdd0ac73e45b24b8722aa4f34ddcbc6
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1022407 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
--
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
