Attachment 617126 Details for Bug 859731 – php-channel-sabredav-review.txt

php-channel-sabredav-review.txt

php-channel-sabredav-review.txt (text/plain), 6.79 KB, created by Remi Collet on 2012-09-25 16:25:17 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Remi Collet

Created: 2012-09-25 16:25:17 UTC

Size: 6.79 KB

patch

obsolete

>
>Package Review
>==============
>
>Key:
>- = N/A
>x = Pass
>! = Fail
>? = Not evaluated
>
>
>
>==== Generic ====
>[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
>     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
>[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
>[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>     Guidelines.
>[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
>     least one supported primary architecture.
>[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
>[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
>     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
>[-]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
>[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
>[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
>[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
>     Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
>[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
>[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
>[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
>[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>[-]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
>[-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
>[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
>[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
>[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
>[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>     beginning of %install.
>     Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
>[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
>[-]: 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 is included in %doc.
>[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
>     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
>[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
>     names).
>[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
>[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
>[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
>     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
>[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
>[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>     Provides are present.
>[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
>[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
>[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
>[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
>[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
>[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
>     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
>[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
>     provided in the spec URL.
>[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
>[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
>     %{name}.spec.
>[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
>[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
>[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
>[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
>     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
>[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
>     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
>     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
>[-]: 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.
>[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
>[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
>     /usr/sbin.
>[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
>     --requires).
>[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
>[-]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged
>[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
>     upstream.
>[x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
>
>	(un)install the package properly (un)register the channel
>	=> pecl list-channels
>
>[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
>[-]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
>     Note: Source0 (channel.xml)
>[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
>[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
>     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
>[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>     architectures.
>[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
>[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>     files.
>[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
>
>
>==== PHP ====
>[!]: MUST Package requires php-common instead of php.
>
>Issues:
>[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>     beginning of %install.
>     Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
>
>See: None
>[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
>     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
>See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames
>
>Rpmlint
>-------
>Checking: php-channel-sabredav-1.3-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
>          php-channel-sabredav-1.3-2.fc17.src.rpm
>php-channel-sabredav.noarch: W: no-documentation
>php-channel-sabredav.src:19: W: unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(%{channelname})
>
>=> ok, as version have no sense here
>
>php-channel-sabredav.src:42: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 42)
>2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
>
>
>Rpmlint (installed packages)
>----------------------------
>Cannot parse rpmlint output:
>Requires
>--------
>php-channel-sabredav-1.3-2.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    
>    /bin/sh  
>    /usr/bin/pear  
>    php-pear(PEAR)  
>
>Provides
>--------
>php-channel-sabredav-1.3-2.fc17.noarch.rpm:
>    
>    php-channel(pear.sabredav.org)  
>    php-channel-sabredav = 1.3-2.fc17
>
>MD5-sum check
>-------------
>http://pear.sabredav.org/channel.xml :
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e0d1cd037fdf25affdb1ecec1ff2384329b94c953aee5c6929da55c1906eeca8
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e0d1cd037fdf25affdb1ecec1ff2384329b94c953aee5c6929da55c1906eeca8
>
>
>Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09
>Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 859731
>External plugins:

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 859731: 617126