https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997378
Michal Schorm <msch...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Michal Schorm <msch...@redhat.com> ---
I've ran the 'fedora-review' tool on this package.
Let's begin with the big findings first:
------------------------------------------
'fedora-review' reports:
Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB)
or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 3205120 bytes in 169 files.
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
Reviewer opinion:
The package manual page coverage is rather extensive for a single tool.
Even if the HTML Docs won't be present, I'd be quite confident to say the
package is still well documented when installed.
The additional 3MB in size HTML Docs should be moved to a standalone
sub-package.
If the Docs is architecture-independent, the sub-package should be
'noarch'.
Q: Does the HTML docs provide more / different information or it is just a
duplicate of the manpages in a different format ?
If the Docs would be just a duplicate, I'd consider not packing it.
Also, please note the Docs contains code under additional licenses, e.g.
JQuery code under MIT license.
Since the Docs utilise CSS, JS, JQuery, ... it requires an application
capable interpreting those, to be used at all.
Might be a good idea to take a look at other packages to learn how they
deal with Docs in such format.
------------------------------------------
'fedora-review' reports:
Rpmlint
-------
W: manpage-not-compressed gz /usr/share/man/man1/pg_autoctl config check.1
Reviewer opinion:
The manpages should be compressed.
Also, we have automation for that. Take a look at the second paragraph
describing usage of the RPM "%doc" directive and "%_pkgdocdir" macro:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
------------------------------------------
'fedora-review' reports:
Rpmlint
-------
W: invalid-license Apache
Reviewer opinion:
Here is a list of approved licenses for Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
The error might be caused by using incorrect name or abbreviation for the
same license.
------------------------------------------
Reviewer finding:
The SPECfile:
| # openssl is required for ssl-self-signed option in pg_auto_failover
| Requires: postgresql postgresql-contrib openssl glibc
Reviewer opinion:
Please take a look at:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_dependency_types
and consider making some of the "Requires:" to be "Recommends:" or just
"Suggests:" only.
The comment suggest that the "openssl" is a good candidate for such change.
Also, are you sure the 'glibc' dependency is necessary? That would be most
unusual.
If required by the binaries, it should be required automatically. In such
case you even MUST NOT duplicate such automatic requirement.
------------------------------------------
Reviewer finding:
The SPECfile:
| %files
| %{_bindir}/*
| %{_libdir}/*
Reviewer opinion:
Please do not use Globs for a critical parts of the package.
While it is not forbidden for most parts of the package, it is a best
practice to not conceal the important files that are actually packed.
Explicit listing also serves as a good protection mechanisms for the
maintainer during package rebases - to catch unexpected files additions or
removals.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
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
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
