Attachment 791795 Details for Bug 1002275 – Package review document

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:

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-----

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 1002275: 791795 | 794444