https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172141

Florian "der-flo" Lehner dev@der-flo.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dev@der-flo.net Flags| |fedora-review?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172141

Laurence Field Laurence.Field@cern.ch changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |Laurence.Field@cern.ch

--- Comment #3 from Laurence Field Laurence.Field@cern.ch --- Package Review ==============

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

===== 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. [!]: 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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lfield/1172141-pakiti/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== 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: pakiti-client-3.0.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm pakiti-3.0.0-1.fc21.src.rpm pakiti-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qa -> q, a, qua pakiti-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dpkg -> pkg, d pkg pakiti-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linux -> Linux pakiti-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distro -> bistro, district pakiti-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openssl -> slope pakiti-client.noarch: W: non-standard-group Utilities/System pakiti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qa -> q, a, qua pakiti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dpkg -> pkg, d pkg pakiti.src: W: non-standard-group Utilities/System 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpmlint pakiti-client pakiti-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qa -> q, a, qua pakiti-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dpkg -> pkg, d pkg pakiti-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linux -> Linux pakiti-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distro -> bistro, district pakiti-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openssl -> slope pakiti-client.noarch: W: non-standard-group Utilities/System 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires -------- pakiti-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(File::Temp) perl(FindBin) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(Pod::Usage) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings)

Provides -------- pakiti-client: pakiti-client

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/CESNET/pakiti3/archive/1f59f72da85834a3e686e4a26c9e6bb341... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 697041a634cbaa32b8941d5e6e4900a58e9599f92e6e9cfe786ba9ac7e19cdd1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 697041a634cbaa32b8941d5e6e4900a58e9599f92e6e9cfe786ba9ac7e19cdd1

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1172141 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172141

--- Comment #5 from Adrien Devresse adev88@gmail.com --- Hi Laurence,

Thank you for the review

Concerning the problem you reported :

- RPMGroup : Fixed. This is now converted to a more adapted group for EPEL5 compat

- License: Fixed. BSD has been added as supplementar valid license.

- spelling error: false error, no correction.

Here they are :

Spec URL: https://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/pakiti/p...

SRPM URL: https://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/pakiti/p...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172141

Laurence Field Laurence.Field@cern.ch changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172141

Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mrunge@redhat.com Flags|fedora-review+ |needinfo?(Laurence.Field@ce | |rn.ch)

--- Comment #8 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- %clean section is not required any more

- same goes to %defattr and - cleaning up buildroot in install step.

Laurence, did you saw this was already assigned to Florian?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172141

--- Comment #10 from Adrien Devresse adev88@gmail.com --- @Florian: Your opinion matter and your comments are naturally welcome. I fixed the issue you mention on the last version of the spec file.

@Matthias: This is a package that targets EPEL5 too.

The buildroot section and the clean section are needed for this plateform. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#BuildRoot_tag https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Cleaning_BuildRoot_in_.25clean

Concerning the %defattr, they are indeed not needed. However, rpmlint under EL5/EL6 spam a lot of warnings if %defattr missing. To be coherent, I usually keep it. If it is a problem from your perspective, I can remove it.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172141

Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mrunge@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #12 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- Adrien,

your spec file has a few glitches, as noted above. But it is acceptable.

Personally, I'd specify file names more explicit and remove rhel5 references or make it more conditional. I'd expect this to fail building on rawhide sooner or later, since tools are evolving. If you were my mentee, I'd also require you to list changes made during review process in changelog and bump the revision.

But in general, that's a matter of personal preference.

I reviewed the package again, and didn't found anything blocking us here.

Package approved.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172141

--- Comment #14 from Adrien Devresse adev88@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pakiti Short Description: Patching status monitoring tool Upstream URL: https://github.com/CESNET/pakiti3 Owners: adev Branches: f19 f20 f21 el5 el6 epel7 InitialCC: perl-sig

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172141

Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172141

Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |psabata@redhat.com

--- Comment #16 from Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com --- Why does this package BR perl? Because you call pod2man which happens to be a perl script?

You should depend on %{_bindir}/pod2man instead.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172141

Adrien Devresse adev88@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NOTABUG |RAWHIDE