Bug 879757
Summary: | Review Request: ds-backup - for school server | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | zyu26 |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | ctyler.fedora, jcqiu, misc, package-review, ray.freeping, zyu26 |
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: | 2020-08-10 00:46:32 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: | 177841, 201449 |
Description
zyu26
2012-11-24 05:39:50 UTC
I would appreciate that somebody can review this package which need a sponsor and release to Fedora. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: 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. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [?]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package server, %package client [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/zyu26/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-ds- backup/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [!]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/zyu26/rpmbuild/SRPMS /review-ds-backup/diff.txt [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [?]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [?]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [x]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ds-backup-client-0.11.5.g536d1d6-3.fc17.noarch.rpm ds-backup-0.11.5.g536d1d6-3.fc17.src.rpm ds-backup-server-0.11.5.g536d1d6-3.fc17.noarch.rpm ds-backup-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-backup.py ds-backup-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-backup.sh ds-backup-server.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/ds-backup/backup-available.py ds-backup-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-postprocess.py ds-backup-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-cleanup.sh ds-backup-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-cleanup.py 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. rpmbuild --rebuild ds-backup-0.11.5.g536d1d6-3.fc17.src.rpm ...... Requires(post): /bin/sh Requires: /bin/bash /usr/bin/python Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /home/jcqiu/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/ds-backup-0.11.5.g536d1d6-3.fc17.x86_64 warning: Could not canonicalize hostname: Fedora17 Wrote: /home/jcqiu/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/ds-backup-client-0.11.5.g536d1d6-3.fc17.noarch.rpm Wrote: /home/jcqiu/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/ds-backup-server-0.11.5.g536d1d6-3.fc17.noarch.rpm Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ChcoYT + umask 022 + cd /home/jcqiu/rpmbuild/BUILD + cd ds-backup-0.11.5.g536d1d6 + rm -rf /home/jcqiu/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/ds-backup-0.11.5.g536d1d6-3.fc17.x86_64 + exit 0 Executing(--clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.SxRhM7 + umask 022 + cd /home/jcqiu/rpmbuild/BUILD + rm -rf ds-backup-0.11.5.g536d1d6 + exit 0 rpm -i ds-backup-0.11.5.g536d1d6-3.fc17.src.rpm warning: user zyu26 does not exist - using root warning: group zyu26 does not exist - using root warning: user zyu26 does not exist - using root warning: group zyu26 does not exist - using root │ ├── ds-backup-0.11.5.g536d1d6.tar.bz2 │ ├── ds-backup.spec rpmlint ds-backup.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. │ │ ├── ds-backup-client-0.11.5.g536d1d6-3.fc17.noarch.rpm │ │ └── ds-backup-server-0.11.5.g536d1d6-3.fc17.noarch.rpm rpmlint ds-backup* ds-backup-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-backup.py ds-backup-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-backup.sh ds-backup-server.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/ds-backup/backup-available.py ds-backup-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-postprocess.py ds-backup-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-cleanup.sh ds-backup-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ds-cleanup.py 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. The script-without-shebang error has been fixed. SPEC URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~zyu26/olpc/release_0.3/ds-backup.spec SRPM URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~zyu26/olpc/release_0.3/ds-backup-0.11.5.g536d1d6-4.fc17.src.rpm Do you want to continue this review? This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience. This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it. |