https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331175
philip.worr...@googlemail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |philip.worrall@googlemail.c
| |om
Flags| |needinfo?(sultan@locehilios
| |.com)
--- Comment #2 from philip.worr...@googlemail.com ---
Hello,
This is an INFORMAL review as I am NOT an official fedora packager.
* The licence is included in the source tarball but not in the files section of
the spec file.
* It's not necessary to use %defattr in the files section anymore
* If the source code of the package provides a test suite, it should be
executed in the %check
section, whenever it is practical to do so.
* Do you need to list bats as a build dependency for the testsuite?
* Do you need to list gnupg2 as a dependency?
* You should add the dist tag to your release version i.e. 1%{?dist}
* In the changelog you MAY want to indicate that this is the initial fedora
packaged version
* Is Yadm only for managing dot files or is it for any type of file?
* In your man page the description is..
Yadm is a tool for managing a collection of files across multiple computers
using a shared Git repository. In addition, yadm provides a feature to select
alternate versions of files based on the operation system or host name.
Lastly, yadm supplies the ability to manage a subset of secure files,
which are encrypted before they are included in the repository.
I think this is better than the description listed in the spec file. Try to
make it clear
to the user why they would *need* this package i.e. what problem can it solve.
* The Group tag is deprecated. RPM since Fedora 18 does not require the
presence
of the Group tag in the spec file. If the tag is defined, it will be ignored.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.
===== 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.
[!]: 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: "GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/worralph/fedora-
review/yadm/licensecheck.txt
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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).
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: yadm-1.04-1.noarch.rpm
yadm-1.04-1.src.rpm
yadm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dotfile -> dot file,
dot-file, docile
yadm.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/yadm.1.gz 1: warning:
macro `"' not defined
yadm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dotfile -> dot file,
dot-file, docile
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
yadm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dotfile -> dot file,
dot-file, docile
yadm.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/yadm.1.gz 1: warning:
macro `"' not defined
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires
--------
yadm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/bash
bash
git
Provides
--------
yadm:
yadm
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/TheLocehiliosan/yadm/archive/1.04.tar.gz#/yadm-1.04.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
a73aa51245866ce67aeb4322a62995ebbb13f29dc35508f486819dceb534968a
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a73aa51245866ce67aeb4322a62995ebbb13f29dc35508f486819dceb534968a
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn yadm-1.04-1.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
rpmls ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/yadm-1.04-1.src.rpm
-rw-r--r-- yadm-1.04.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- yadm.spec
rpmls ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/yadm-1.04-1.noarch.rpm
-rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/yadm
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/yadm.1.gz
--
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
