Bug 821845
Summary: | Review Request: erlang-egeoip - Erlang IP Geolocation module | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Michel Lind <michel> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | michel, notting, package-review, tcallawa |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | michel:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2012-06-16 23:57:08 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
Peter Lemenkov
2012-05-15 14:58:16 UTC
Cast wizards - raise magic FE-Legal flag. Thats a fun new variant of BSD with advertising. Just add "BSD with advertising" to the License: tag in the package. Lifting FE-Legal. (In reply to comment #2) > Thats a fun new variant of BSD with advertising. Just add "BSD with > advertising" to the License: tag in the package. Lifting FE-Legal. Thanks! Taking this review full review below. Some notes: - could you make the build more verbose (by passing REBAR_FLAGS="-v" ?) - the comment regarding the Open Data license needs to be updated -- probably remove the AFAIK and IANAL part since spot and the legal team has reviewed it - defattr needs removing You can fix that when importing though. The rest are the same RHEL-related issues discussed in previous reviews. APPROVED Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [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. [!]: 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. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Could not retrieve sources. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [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. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. No meaningful tests are shipped with the package [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Build needs to be made more verbose - pass -v as REBAR_FLAGS [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 See: None [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git External plugins: (In reply to comment #5) > full review below. Some notes: > > - could you make the build more verbose (by passing REBAR_FLAGS="-v" ?) > - the comment regarding the Open Data license needs to be updated -- > probably remove the AFAIK and IANAL part since spot and the legal team has > reviewed it > - defattr needs removing All done, and thanks for the review! Updated packages: * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-egeoip.spec * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-egeoip-0-0.3.20111025git45c32ad.fc18.src.rpm Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4135307 New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: erlang-egeoip Short Description: Erlang IP Geolocation module Owners: peter Branches: f16 f17 el6 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). erlang-egeoip-0-0.3.20111025git45c32ad.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-egeoip-0-0.3.20111025git45c32ad.fc16 erlang-egeoip-0-0.3.20111025git45c32ad.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-egeoip-0-0.3.20111025git45c32ad.el6 erlang-egeoip-0-0.3.20111025git45c32ad.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-egeoip-0-0.3.20111025git45c32ad.fc17 erlang-egeoip-0-0.3.20111025git45c32ad.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. erlang-egeoip-0-0.3.20111025git45c32ad.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. erlang-egeoip-0-0.3.20111025git45c32ad.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. erlang-egeoip-0-0.3.20111025git45c32ad.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. |