Bug 954074
Summary: | Review Request: RemoteBox - Open Source VirtualBox Client with Remote Management | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Christopher Meng <i> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Scott Talbert <swt> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | misc, notting, package-review, swt, volker27 |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | swt:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | RemoteBox-1.1-1.el6 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-11-09 03:29:01 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
Christopher Meng
2013-04-20 12:33:39 UTC
error: (will be fatal in the future): value "remotebox.png" for key "Icon" in group "Desktop Entry" is an icon name with an extension, but there should be no extension as described in the Icon Theme Specification if the value is not an absolute path Did you try to submit the desktop file? Did you ask them to include a license file yet? Please give a rationale for AutoReq: no. I'd suggest to use the _prefix and _docdir macros in your sed invocations. You're not owning %{_datadir}/%{name}. Make "%{_datadir}/%{name}/*" "%{_datadir}/%{name}". That'll do! I noticed that the file remotebox states "Licenced under the terms of the GPL". This statement should better include the version. I'll wait for the author's response. (In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #1) > error: (will be fatal in the future): value "remotebox.png" for key "Icon" > in group "Desktop Entry" is an icon name with an extension, but there should > be no extension as described in the Icon Theme Specification if the value is > not an absolute path Fixed. > Did you try to submit the desktop file? Did you ask them to include a > license file yet? Quoted from author: "I may consider adding a .desktop file in the tarball in a future release, but it's perfectly legitimate to create your own." License file quote: "The GPL version is quite clearly stated in the file share/remotebox/remotebox.xml and is viewable from the about menu. It's not necessary to include a specific LICENSE file. " > Please give a rationale for AutoReq: no. I don't know how to exclude the *.pl(RPM treated it as requires) as I've tried many solutions but they all seems useless... > I'd suggest to use the _prefix and _docdir macros in your sed invocations. Fixed. > You're not owning %{_datadir}/%{name}. Make "%{_datadir}/%{name}/*" > "%{_datadir}/%{name}". That'll do! Thanks. NEW SPEC: http://cicku.me/remotebox.spec NEW SRPM: http://cicku.me/remotebox-1.5-2.fc20.src.rpm Will start review when you update spec. Rename as tarball name. Filter out unneeded requires/provides. NEW SPEC: http://cicku.me/RemoteBox.spec NEW SRPM: http://cicku.me/RemoteBox-1.6-1.fc21.src.rpm I have concerns about using /usr/share or /usr/libexec for the location of *.pl files. I don't want to use /usr/lib for storing *.pl, quoted from hierarchy: /usr/libexec includes internal binaries that are not intended to be executed directly by users or shell scripts. Applications may use a single subdirectory under /usr/libexec. At the moment I'm using /usr/share and I think it's fine IMHO, however if anyone can point me which one is better, I may change as well. I think /usr/share should be fine for *.pl. 'fedora-review' package, for example, uses /usr/share for all of its *.py files, which I think is similar. So it seems fine. (In reply to Scott Talbert from comment #8) > I think /usr/share should be fine for *.pl. 'fedora-review' package, for > example, uses /usr/share for all of its *.py files, which I think is > similar. So it seems fine. Thanks for your comment, hope you can finish the review soon! ;) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= [!]: License field should be GPLv2 (vs GPLv2+) - I did not see anything indicating "or later version" unless I missed something. [!]: A couple of minor spelling errors: virtualisation -> virtualization; orientated -> oriented. [!]: Packaging doesn't preserve the timestamps of the files that are getting modified by sed. I'm not sure if this is worth fixing, though? You could maybe get the timestamp with 'stat' and then reset it with 'touch' after the sed operation. Not sure how big a deal this is, though. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/talbert/fedora- review/954074-RemoteBox/licensecheck.txt (GPLv2+ vs GPLv2) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. (spelling errors) [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 348160 bytes in 3 files. [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 %doc. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. ===== 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: RemoteBox-1.6-1.fc21.noarch.rpm RemoteBox-1.6-1.fc21.src.rpm RemoteBox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualisation -> visualization RemoteBox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vboxmanage -> manageable RemoteBox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vboxwebsrv RemoteBox.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary remotebox RemoteBox.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualisation -> visualization RemoteBox.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vboxmanage -> manageable RemoteBox.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vboxwebsrv 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint RemoteBox RemoteBox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualisation -> visualization RemoteBox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vboxmanage -> manageable RemoteBox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vboxwebsrv RemoteBox.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary remotebox 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- RemoteBox (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.1) perl(Carp) perl(Encode) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Spec) perl(FindBin) perl(MIME::Base64) perl(POSIX) perl(SOAP::Lite) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) perl-Gtk2 perl-libwww-perl rdesktop xdg-utils Provides -------- RemoteBox: RemoteBox application() application(RemoteBox.desktop) Source checksums ---------------- http://knobgoblin.org.uk/downloads/RemoteBox-1.6.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : be50da66ae4b112bf977e940baa48a65c16dccdfc0196c8184b41dd89fb19789 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : be50da66ae4b112bf977e940baa48a65c16dccdfc0196c8184b41dd89fb19789 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 954074 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG I don't think we need to preserve the timestamps of sed-ed files. (Some python programs also need to remove env lines, but we don't preserve timestamps actually.) Others fixed at: NEW SPEC: http://cicku.me/RemoteBox.spec NEW SRPM: http://cicku.me/RemoteBox-1.6-2.fc21.src.rpm Another note is that upstream allows packagers to modify some lines(which I've modified via sed to match the FHS or actual needs). You can check the comments in the pl files. Preserving timestamps is somewhat controversial, and it is something where a packager ought not to exxaggerate. It is not a MUST, but a SHOULD in some cases only. Mostly: prebuilt files that are installed manually during %install. If you need to modify a prebuilt file (even when using sed), don't try to too hard to restore its original timestamp. Some packagers do that (e.g. because all they do is to replace line delimiters), but the guidelines don't mandate it. Preserving timestamps dates back to fedora.us, where we have found it to be a nice idea with %doc files, so the user may recognise the age of old software/documentation when visiting them in %_docdir. That has been considered helpful also in other cases, such as default configuration files. After installing a regularly updated package in 2013, you may notice that the included documentation and config files are from 2001, and that may be a helpful hint in various ways. As a plus: when running intrusion detection software such as AIDE or Tripwire, you don't need to disable timestamp change logging for such files in packages, which are updated often without changing the file contents actually. Latest rev looks good to me! Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: RemoteBox Short Description: Open Source VirtualBox Client with Remote Management Owners: cicku Branches: f19 f20 el6 Git done (by process-git-requests). RemoteBox-1.6-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/RemoteBox-1.6-2.el6 RemoteBox-1.6-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/RemoteBox-1.6-2.fc19 RemoteBox-1.6-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/RemoteBox-1.6-2.fc20 RemoteBox-1.6-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. RemoteBox-1.6-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/RemoteBox-1.6-3.el6 RemoteBox-1.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/RemoteBox-1.1-1.el6 RemoteBox-1.6-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. RemoteBox-1.6-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. RemoteBox-1.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: RemoteBox New Branches: epel7 Owners: cicku Git done (by process-git-requests). |