Bug 478362
Summary: | Review Request: fmirror - Mirror directories from ftp servers | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Fabian Affolter <mail> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | christoph.wickert, fedora-package-review, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2010-04-02 22:04:35 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 201449 |
Description
Fabian Affolter
2008-12-28 23:20:55 UTC
REVIEW FOR deecdd74d33f7ed0cb2cd358c27663c0 fmirror-0.8.4-1.fc9.src.rpm OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/fmirror-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. FIX - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines, see below for details OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv2+) OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2+) OK - MUST: The source package includes the text of the license in its own file, and that file is included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file is written in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible. OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL: md5sum 78652ce5bb50e6c120c9ca0988cb9dca OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture: tested on i386 N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires: None, because all build deps are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines. N/A - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates: None except in docdir FIX - MUST: The package does not contain duplicate files in the %files listing, but the files listing needs work, see below OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package contains code. N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. OK - MUST: Files included something as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} N/A - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: N/A - 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. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: The package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures: tested in koji OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines for further information. Issues: I'm not happy with the URL tag, but there seems to be no upstream and it's better than nothing. The timestamp of Source0 does not match, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps Files section: I'm not happy with the two folders in doc. Several Options: 1. leave the files in /usr/share/fmirror, but mark the confif files as %config and the README as %doc. 2. if you mark something as %config, it should usually should be in /etc. If it's in there it should better be %config(noreplace) 3. install the config /usr/share/doc/fmirror-%{version} and rename configs/README. Mark them as %doc, not as %config 4. install the config folder as a subfolder of /usr/share/doc/fmirror-%{version} 5. Patch the Makefile for one of the previous options Option 2: %configure --datadir=%{_sysconfdir} make %{?_smp_mflags} %install rm -rf %{buildroot} make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="install -p" chmod -x %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/fmirror.1 mv configs/README configs/README.configs rm -rf %config %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/README ... %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc ChangeLog COPYING README %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/ Option 3: %install rm -rf %{buildroot} make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="install -p" chmod -x %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/fmirror.1 # these files are packaged in doc rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name} mv configs/README configs/README.configs ... %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc ChangeLog COPYING README %doc configs/*.conf %doc configs/README.configs Option 4: %install rm -rf %{buildroot} make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="install -p" chmod -x %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/fmirror.1 # these files are packaged in doc rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name} rm -rf configs/CVS ... %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc ChangeLog COPYING README %docdir configs/ %doc configs/ Ideas: - Include a fedora.conf file - Debian seems to have a couple of interesting patches, see http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/f/fmirror/fmirror_0.8.4-13.diff.gz Thanks Christoph for your review and your help. I will incorporate the changes as soon as possible. Please let me know if you are still interested in maintaining this package. This bug was in NEEDINFO state for months now. I will close it now as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews |