[Bug 453109] Review Request: nocpulse-users - Adds NOCpulse user
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Aug 6 00:42:14 UTC 2008
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453109
Michael Stahnke <mastahnke at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mastahnke at gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Michael Stahnke <mastahnke at gmail.com> 2008-08-05 20:42:12 EDT ---
I'll go ahead and start a review. Numbers 4 and 5 I need to look into more.
A few notes
FAIL - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
rpmlint is not silent. This isn't show stopping, but could be better.
rpmlint nocpulse-users-1.17.11-7.fc8.noarch.rpm
nocpulse-users.noarch: W: no-documentation
nocpulse-users.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/nocpulse/.ssh nocpulse
nocpulse-users.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/nocpulse/.ssh nocpulse
nocpulse-users.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/nocpulse/.ssh
nocpulse-users.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/nocpulse/.ssh
nocpulse-users.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/nocpulse nocpulse
nocpulse-users.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/nocpulse nocpulse
nocpulse-users.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/nocpulse nocpulse
nocpulse-users.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/nocpulse nocpulse
nocpulse-users.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /etc/nocpulse nocpulse
nocpulse-users.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /etc/nocpulse nocpulse
nocpulse-users.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/nocpulse
nocpulse-users.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided NPusers
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
1. Could any documentation be provided for this package?
2. Any time you obsolete something, you should provide it also, that way
anything depending on what you obsolete doesn't have to be rebuilt.
3. /var/log/nocpulse log should be incorporated into logrotate. System admins
will thank you.
4. ??- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines .
>>This really isn't code, it's a user
5. ?? - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
>>There isn't really source. Not sure how that works.
OK - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
OK - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming
Guidelines .
OK - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
NA - MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
NA - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next
to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla
entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the
comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and
replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc ,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
OK - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
OK - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
OK - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
OK - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the
macros section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)
OK - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
NA - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
NA - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
NA - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
NA - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
NA - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
NA - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
NA - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of
the Packaging Guidelines . If you feel that your packaged GUI application does
not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your
explanation.
OK - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for
details.
NA - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
NA - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See
MockTricks for details on how to do this.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
OK - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
OK - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
NA - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
OK - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines for
further information.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list