Bug 1172141

hi Adrien!

There are some points:

[ ] Please don't use your own BuildRoot. See:
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[ ] Your clean-section is not needed. See:
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
[ ] The text of ASL 2.0 is provided but there are several files under BSD License (two clause). 

Cheers, 
 Flo

Hi Florian,

Concerning the buildRoot and the clean section. The package targets a support for EL5 too. 

For the code under BSD. I will provide you an update.

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/1f59f72da85834a3e686e4a26c9e6bb3410a4389/pakiti-1f59f72.tar.gz :
  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

As already mentioned please check the license. Also the rpm group and spellings in the spec file. 

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups

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/pakiti.spec

SRPM URL: https://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/pakiti/pakiti-3.0.0-1.el6.src.rpm

linux -> Linux
distro -> distribution
openssl -> OpenSSL

Obviously my opinion does not matter.

%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?

I saw the comments but didn't realize he was offially reviewing, my mistake.

@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.

Hi Guys,

Now, no one is attached to the review anymore ^^

Please, can one of view make me a last review and say me if the package is acceptable in this state or not ?


Thank you in advance,
Adrien

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.

Thank you Matthias :)

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

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Why does this package BR perl?  Because you call pod2man which happens to be a perl script?

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

Hi Petr,

Thank you for your comment.

I will change this.


Adrien