[Bug 1377877] Review Request: luksmeta - Utility for storing small metadata in the LUKSv1 header

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377877

Paul Wouters  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|VERIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-01-23 11:21:38



-- 
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

[Bug 1377877] Review Request: luksmeta - Utility for storing small metadata in the LUKSv1 header

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377877



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/luksmeta

-- 
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

[Bug 1377877] Review Request: luksmeta - Utility for storing small metadata in the LUKSv1 header

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377877

Paul Wouters  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |VERIFIED
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Paul Wouters  ---

Package PASSED - minor updates needed


Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
  Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in libluksmeta
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
- 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 COPYING is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

- Use %license instead of %doc in rawhide

- Check the missing requires section below for some of the interpackage
warnings it showed.

Personal Pet Peeves of reviewer:
==
I don't like macros in URL: or Source: as it makes it harder to select
the target url. I personally only use macros where "re-use" makes sense,
like post/pre/etc service names.

Use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ?

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/paul/fedora/1377877-luksmeta/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 30720 bytes in 1 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: 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]: 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]: 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.

[Bug 1377877] Review Request: luksmeta - Utility for storing small metadata in the LUKSv1 header

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377877

Paul Wouters  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pwout...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pwout...@redhat.com



-- 
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