https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819180
Petr Menšík <pemen...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |pemen...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |pemen...@redhat.com
--- Comment #10 from Petr Menšík <pemen...@redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in ssh-chat
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat
License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 83 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/1819180-ssh-chat/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system,
/usr/lib/systemd
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[?]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: ssh-chat (description)
is %gopkg on correct place?
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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 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]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[?]: 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.
[-]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[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: ssh-chat-1.8.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
ssh-chat-1.8.2-1.fc33.src.rpm
ssh-chat.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/ssh-chat.1.gz
ssh-chat.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown
ssh-chat.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
ssh-chat.src: W: strange-permission ssh-chatd 755
ssh-chat.src: E: specfile-error warning: -u use in %forgemeta is deprecated,
use -z instead to select a separate set of rpm variables!
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: ssh-chat-debuginfo-1.8.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
ssh-chat.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://travis-ci.org/shazow/ssh-chat
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
ssh-chat.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/ssh-chat.1.gz
ssh-chat.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown
ssh-chat.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
ssh-chat-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://travis-ci.org/shazow/ssh-chat <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service
not known>
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/shazow/ssh-chat/archive/v1.8.2.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
b547ad9919f9432eaad6a5f5b9de9a686f525624c29dd268ae14128e81542726
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
b547ad9919f9432eaad6a5f5b9de9a686f525624c29dd268ae14128e81542726
Requires
--------
ssh-chat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/bash
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
openssh
rtld(GNU_HASH)
shadow-utils
Provides
--------
ssh-chat:
ssh-chat
ssh-chat(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1819180
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, Java, R, Haskell,
C/C++, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
---
Few notes:
I do not like what is done in %post script. Please move key generation to
systemd oneshot unit. It should not generate something in post script. It
should not definitely generate it as root and chown there.
Also, it seems /usr is used for configuration. Please create
%{_sysconfdir}/ssh-chat and put key there. It does not belong to /usr. If just
key is required and nothing else, %{_sysconfdir}/ssh-chat.key would be enough.
Check unbound-keygen.service from unbound package as an example.
#BuildRequires: golang(github.com/alexcesaro/log)
#BuildRequires: golang(github.com/alexcesaro/log/golog)
#BuildRequires: golang(github.com/shazow/rateio)
it would be better if they got their own review and depend on it as normal
package. If they are reusable, please make them that way. At least they should
have devel subpackage with correct provides in this package.
Please either add
Requires: systemd
or
%files
...
%dir %{_unitdir}
--
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
