Bug 1231262
| Summary: | Review Request: debbuild - Build Debian-compatible .deb packages from RPM .spec files | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Neal Gompa <ngompa13> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Miroslav Suchý <msuchy> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | msuchy, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | msuchy:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | debbuild-0.11.2-1.el7 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2015-07-30 00:41:15 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Neal Gompa
2015-06-12 14:06:39 UTC
> BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > %defattr(-,root,root,-) This is not needed since F11, so unless you want to build this package for EL5, you should remove it. > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Can you choose one style of variables? I suggest to replace this by %{buildroot}. > nothing provides xz-utils needed by debbuild-0.10.1-1.fc22.noarch AFAIK it is needed because of/usr/bin/xz which are in "xz" in Fedora. I would suggest to change Requires of dpkg-dev to: Recommends: dpkg-dev as it provides /usr/bin/dpkg-architecture which is used if available and greatly enhance user experience. But this program will run without it. The main reason I didn't use Recommends is because Enterprise Linux and Fedora 21 don't support resolving weak dependencies. I've now added a conditional to switch between Requires and Recommends based on whether it is EL or Fedora versions lower than 22. I've also fixed the xz dependency. I've removed the EL5 specific stuff since EL5 is ancient and I don't really care about that release anyway. Here's the updated SRPM URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/debbuild-0.10.1-2.fc22.src.rpm The Spec URL remains the same: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/debbuild.spec APPROVED
The diff in SRPM is very minor issue, just be sure you are uploading SRPM with correct changelog in dist-git.
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.
[x]: 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]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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 %license.
[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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[-]: 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.
[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]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
attached diff).
See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/mirek/projects/mock/1231262-debbuild/srpm/debbuild.spec 2015-07-05 14:55:58.231903413 +0200
+++ /home/mirek/projects/mock/1231262-debbuild/srpm-unpacked/debbuild.spec 2015-07-05 13:21:47.000000000 +0200
@@ -51,7 +51,5 @@
%changelog
* Sun Jul 5 2015 Neal Gompa <ngompa13{%}gmail{*}com> - 0.10.1-2
-- Fix dependencies on dpkg-dev and xz
-- Remove superfluous spec statements (BuildRoot, etc.)
-- Make variable usage consistent
+- Fix dependencies
* Fri Jun 12 2015 Neal Gompa <ngompa13{%}gmail{*}com> - 0.10.1-1
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: debbuild Short Description: Build Debian-compatible .deb packages from RPM .spec files Upstream URL: https://secure.deepnet.cx/trac/debbuild Owners: ngompa Branches: f21 f22 el6 epel7 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). debbuild-0.10.1-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debbuild-0.10.1-2.fc22 debbuild-0.10.1-5.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debbuild-0.10.1-5.fc22 debbuild-0.10.1-5.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debbuild-0.10.1-5.fc21 debbuild-0.10.1-5.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debbuild-0.10.1-5.el7 debbuild-0.10.1-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debbuild-0.10.1-5.el6 debbuild-0.10.1-5.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. debbuild-0.11.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debbuild-0.11.2-1.fc22 debbuild-0.11.2-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debbuild-0.11.2-1.fc21 debbuild-0.11.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debbuild-0.11.2-1.el7 debbuild-0.11.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debbuild-0.11.2-1.el6 debbuild-0.11.2-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. debbuild-0.11.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. debbuild-0.11.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. debbuild-0.11.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |