Bug 958810

Hi,

Here is my informal review

rpmlint output
==============
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

MUST
====

[OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[OK] Package does not use a name that already exist.
[OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec
[OK] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[FAIL] Changelog in prescribed format.

	Only packaging related entries should appear. There are entries
	related to upstream.

[OK] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[OK] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[OK] The spec file must be written in American English.
[OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[--] If a rename, provides/obsoletes is specified.
[--] The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[OK] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.

[FAIL] 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 must be included in %doc.

	It is manually installed under _docdir

[OK] -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[--] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[--] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[--] Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency
[--] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.

[OK] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.

[OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content.

[OK] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[OK] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[OK] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[--] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
[OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
[OK] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.
[OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[--] 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] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[OK] Permissions on files must be set properly.

[OK] Each package must consistently use macros.
[OK] No external kernel modules
[OK] No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries
[OK] No need for external bits
[WARN] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.

	gfal2-devel requires glib2-devel, so this BuildRequires should
	be removed.

[--] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application.
[OK] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags

[OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[--] 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] Package installs properly.

SHOULD
======
[--] All patches have an upstream bug link or comment
[OK] The source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream.
[OK] No PreReq
[OK] %makeinstall is not used
[OK] Timestamp is preserved
[FAILED] Parallel make

	Missing make %{?_smp_mflags} in build, or those flags in install

[--] Subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[--] 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.
[--] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files should be in a -devel pkg
[OK] The package builds in mock.
[OK] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[OK] The package functions as described.
[--] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[--] The package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts
[--] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.

Hi Alej,

Thank you for the review

I updated the src rpm from your comments  : 

Spec URL: http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-plugin-xrootd/gfal2-plugin-xrootd.spec 
SRPM URL: http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-plugin-xrootd/gfal2-plugin-xrootd-0.2.2-2.el5.centos.src.rpm


Problems : 

-> Only packaging related entries should appear. There are entries
	related to upstream.
--> Done


> 	gfal2-devel requires glib2-devel, so this BuildRequires should
	be removed.

--> Corrected

> 	It is manually installed under _docdir

--> All files under _docdir are automatically marked as "documentation" like with the %doc macro. The usage of the doc macro is not needed in this case.
http://www.redhat.com/archives/rpm-list/2001-September/msg00152.html

> 	Missing make %{?_smp_mflags} in build, or those flags in install

--> Done, add missing make entry

Cheers,
Adrien

Builds pass

Fedora 20 build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5346575

EL6 build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5346589

EL5 build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5346601


rpmlint output
==============
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

MUST
====

[OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[OK] Package does not use a name that already exist.
[OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec
[OK] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[OK] Changelog in prescribed format.

[OK] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[OK] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[OK] The spec file must be written in American English.
[OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[--] If a rename, provides/obsoletes is specified.
[--] The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[OK] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.

[OK] 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 must be included in %doc.

[OK] -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[--] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[--] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[--] Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency
[--] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.

[OK] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.

[OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content.

[OK] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[OK] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[OK] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[--] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
[OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
[OK] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.
[OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[--] 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] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[OK] Permissions on files must be set properly.

[OK] Each package must consistently use macros.
[OK] No external kernel modules
[OK] No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries
[OK] No need for external bits
[OK] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.

[--] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application.
[OK] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags

[OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[--] 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] Package installs properly.

SHOULD
======
[--] All patches have an upstream bug link or comment
[OK] The source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream.
[OK] No PreReq
[OK] %makeinstall is not used
[OK] Timestamp is preserved
[OK] Parallel make

[--] Subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[--] 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.
[--] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files should be in a -devel pkg
[OK] The package builds in mock.
[OK] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[OK] The package functions as described.
[--] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[--] The package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts
[--] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.

Checksums
=========
http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-plugin-xrootd/gfal2-plugin-xrootd-0.2.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f609074eadb979aad71c810f56e0161a843cdbb7e0609c0c0b12a6c768ad030b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f609074eadb979aad71c810f56e0161a843cdbb7e0609c0c0b12a6c768ad030b


Looks good to me.

Thank you Alej,


New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: gfal2-plugin-xrootd
Short Description: Provide xrootd support for GFAL2
Owners: adev
Branches: f17 f18 f19 el6 el5
InitialCC: adev

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: gfal2-plugin-xrootd
New Branches: epel7
Owners: adev aalvarez

New branch for EPEL7

Git done (by process-git-requests).