Bug 805304
| Summary: | Review Request: faf - Bug analysis framework for Fedora | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Karel Klíč <kklic> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jiri Popelka <jpopelka> |
| Status: | CLOSED DEFERRED | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | abrt-devel-list, jpopelka, package-review, rmarko, rvokal |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | rmarko:
fedora-review-
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2014-11-21 16:57:07 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
Karel Klíč
2012-03-20 20:18:44 UTC
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[!]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
For example the main package installs
%{_sysconfdir}/httpd/conf.d/faf.conf
but doesn't require httpd. faf-hub subpackage does, but it's not required
by the main package.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: MUST 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.
What about ?
%doc COPYING AUTHORS Changelog NEWS README
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
I see that faf-chroot-helper.c and faf-dwarf-files.c are under GPLv2+.
And a lot of python files (e.g. /usr/bin/faf-worker)
doesn't contain the license note at all, could you check them ?
[!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Seems reasonable.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
faf.i686: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/faf/wrappers/gcc 0644L /usr/bin/python
faf.i686: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyfaf/libsolv.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
If these (there are more) are not supposed to be executable,
then I'd suggest to remove the shebang.
faf.i686: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/faf-chroot-helper root 04750L
faf.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/faf-chroot-helper 04750L
faf.i686: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/faf 02775L
Could you comment these just for record ?
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
faf-0.4.tar.xz :
MD5SUM this package : c085c0b2b7911cf0bde8e0faddeb887d
MD5SUM upstream package : 694155d812195ccf8bf57211f02c0e49
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[!]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
Could you comment '%post hub' ?
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[!]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
No longer relevant as most of the FAF was rewritten since this review was started. We'll submit new review soon. |