Login
Log in using an SSO provider:
Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Login using a Red Hat Bugzilla account
Forgot Password
Create an Account
Red Hat Bugzilla – Attachment 791795 Details for
Bug 1002275
Review Request: ima-evm-utils - IMA/EVM Utilities
Home
New
Search
Simple Search
Advanced Search
My Links
Browse
Requests
Reports
Current State
Search
Tabular reports
Graphical reports
Duplicates
Other Reports
User Changes
Plotly Reports
Bug Status
Bug Severity
Non-Defaults
Product Dashboard
Help
Page Help!
Bug Writing Guidelines
What's new
Browser Support Policy
5.0.4.rh109 Release notes
FAQ
Guides index
User guide
Web Services
Contact
Legal
Migrated Products
[?]
This site requires JavaScript to be enabled to function correctly, please enable it.
Package review document
review.txt.asc (text/plain), 6.87 KB, created by
Josh Bressers
on 2013-08-29 13:10:21 UTC
(
hide
)
Description:
Package review document
Filename:
MIME Type:
Creator:
Josh Bressers
Created:
2013-08-29 13:10:21 UTC
Size:
6.87 KB
patch
obsolete
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > >Package Review >============== > >Legend: >[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated >[ ] = Manual review needed > > > >===== MUST items ===== > >C/C++: >[!]: Package does not contain kernel modules. >[x]: Package contains no static executables. >[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) >[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. > >Generic: >[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. >[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. >[-]: 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. >[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package >[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. >[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. >[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. >[x]: Package complies to the 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. >[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1002275-ima-evm- > utils/licensecheck.txt >[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. >[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. >[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. >[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files. >[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. >[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. >[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 >[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. >[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local >[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). > >===== SHOULD items ===== > >Generic: >[x]: 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). >[?]: Package functions as described. >[ ]: Latest version is packaged. >[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. >[ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments >[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. >[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. >[-]: %check is present and all tests pass. >[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. >[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file >[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. >[x]: Buildroot is not present >[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) >[x]: Dist tag is present. >[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. >[x]: Uses parallel make. >[x]: SourceX is a working URL. >[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. > >===== EXTRA items ===== > >Generic: >[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is > arched. >[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: ima-evm-utils-0.6-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm >ima-evm-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables -> executable, executable s, executrices >ima-evm-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary evmctl >1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > > > > >Rpmlint (installed packages) >- ---------------------------- ># rpmlint ima-evm-utils >ima-evm-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables -> executable, executable s, executrices >ima-evm-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary evmctl >1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ># echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > >Requires >- -------- >ima-evm-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) > libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) > libkeyutils.so.1()(64bit) > libkeyutils.so.1(KEYUTILS_0.3)(64bit) > libssl.so.10()(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > > >Provides >- -------- >ima-evm-utils: > ima-evm-utils > ima-evm-utils(x86-64) > > > >Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 >Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 >Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-20-x86_64 -b 1002275 >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) > >iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSH0ZEAAoJELiLrb4tVBSfCckIAIfnBWzvH70VLz62xV5Qd+Ba >7qqHcBiEuaCDIu6kMmbx2UlPusv4y2p4W9Qw1mpgdrDvulR5hWxBCx+obOVqgg3C >CJgwxvHiW3kGINJufm9LjNKmFkBlkA8K7h8ZoBShtvWHeRKnaBHjS+S92qi4leEH >9IANJkCodbdTEn+v4wW/MFV57X/L4kF/w/2WfIWOk8cpQ/aG2T+UiZayYi7xut7O >h/3rlb1oF7ai9W0/pohQXQJJ2SQJbpNlErI67tWj8VDyQ18eA2bZAMQ8Yki4a00v >q+L2ogJX3g9PAUEArKhaRafEYj4WUuK/i+5xXIbM2LJ4NOGm7f2KsgAvagLwN7A= >=zI6Q >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You cannot view the attachment while viewing its details because your browser does not support IFRAMEs.
View the attachment on a separate page
.
View Attachment As Raw
Actions:
View
Attachments on
bug 1002275
:
791795
|
794444