https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827399
Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |POST
CC| |zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |zebo...@gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> ---
- Consider asking upstream for a separate LICENSE file
- I'm conflicted about the location of these scripts:
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/sqm/start-sqm 744
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/sqm/stop-sqm 744
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/sqm/update-available-qdiscs 744
This is not FHS friendly, these should maybe be in bindir or libexec (which is
Fedora specific I believe)? Maybe ask upstream about it.
- That part is fixed in master:
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/layer_cake.qos 644
/bin/sh
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/piece_of_cake.qos 644
/bin/sh
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/simple.qos 644
/bin/sh
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/simplest.qos 644
/bin/sh
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/simplest_tbf.qos 644
/bin/sh
Consider backporting
https://github.com/tohojo/sqm-scripts/commit/63de5cb0d0eab9ef46f3311acd85239e43fc894f
- seems there is some interest in an EPEL7/8 package:
https://github.com/tohojo/sqm-scripts/issues/119
Package is approved.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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]: 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 %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "GPL (v2)". 20
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/sqm-scripts/review-sqm-
scripts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[!?]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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
===== 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: sqm-scripts-1.4.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
sqm-scripts-1.4.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
sqm-scripts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) shaper -> shape, sharper,
shapes
sqm-scripts.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/sqm/default.conf
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/layer_cake.qos 644
/bin/sh
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/piece_of_cake.qos 644
/bin/sh
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/simple.qos 644
/bin/sh
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/simplest.qos 644
/bin/sh
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/simplest_tbf.qos 644
/bin/sh
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/sqm/start-sqm 744
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/sqm/stop-sqm 744
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/sqm/update-available-qdiscs 744
sqm-scripts.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqm
sqm-scripts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) shaper -> shape, sharper,
shapes
sqm-scripts.src:39: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/sqm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 4 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
