https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728828
Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |POST
CC| |mhron...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |mhron...@redhat.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Package APPROVED.
Nitpicks:
1) Install your ssh keys on remote sites -> I suggest capitalizing SSH. The
same in the %description.
2) The __spec_install_post sorcery around manpgaes is not needed on Fedora, if
you ln the uncompressed manpages, the compressing script will handle the links
well. However I'm not sure if that works on old RHELs.
3) Unbundle pexpect if possible.
4) I'm unsure about the hardlink, but it is probably fine since both instances
are in the same directory
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.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[!]: 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.
[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]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: 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.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note: %define has justification
[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.
===== 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: sshexport-2.4-0.5.fc31.noarch.rpm
sshexport-2.4-0.5.fc31.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sshexport.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.catb.org/~esr/sshexport
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
http://www.catb.org/~esr/sshexport/sshexport-2.4.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
087b2b43af4496c3bd7fc1b37f740ee844879222c454cf85adb27131697e0d27
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
087b2b43af4496c3bd7fc1b37f740ee844879222c454cf85adb27131697e0d27
Requires
--------
sshexport (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
Provides
--------
sshexport:
bundled(python3-pexpect)
ssh-installkeys
sshexport
--
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
