https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1399648



--- Comment #3 from Yunying Sun <yunying....@intel.com> ---
(this is an un-official review)

Besides inline comments(marked with yunying:), here are some additional:
1. "Group:" is not needed.
2. "rm -rf %{buildroot}" should be removed.
3. replace following "xl2tpd" in SPEC file with "%name".

******************************************************************

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
> yunying: LICENSE file contains text of license itself, so should be put under 
> "%license".

- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/xl2tpd
  See:
 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
> yunying: Naming conflict issue should be fixed.


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Public domain", "Unknown or generated", "GPL
     (unversioned/unknown version)". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/test/yunyings/rpmreview/review-
     tpm2-tss/1399648_xl2tpd/review-xl2tpd/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc, /usr/share/man, /var,
     /etc/ppp, /usr, /var/run, /usr/bin, /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib,
     /usr/share, /usr/share/man/man8, /usr/lib/systemd,
     /usr/share/man/man5, /usr/sbin, /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/man/man1,
     /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
> yunying: Remove "rm -rf %{buildroot}", it's not needed.

[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 51200 bytes in 8 files.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: %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]: 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 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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
> yunying: use "%make_build" instead of "make".

[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: xl2tpd-1.3.8-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
          xl2tpd-1.3.8-1.el7.centos.src.rpm
xl2tpd.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3.8-1
['1.3.8-1.el7.centos', '1.3.8-1.centos']
xl2tpd.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
xl2tpd.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/xl2tpd/l2tp-secrets 0600L
xl2tpd.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/xl2tpd-1.3.8/LICENSE
xl2tpd.x86_64: E: non-readable /var/run/xl2tpd/l2tp-control 0600L
xl2tpd.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ppp/chap-secrets.sample 0600L
xl2tpd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xl2tpd-control
xl2tpd.src:66: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/tmpfiles.d/
xl2tpd.src:67: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/tmpfiles.d/%{name}.conf
xl2tpd.src:105: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/tmpfiles.d/%{name}.conf
> yunying: use %{_libdir} instead of hardcoded-library-path.

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 3 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to