Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~walters/rpm-ostree-toolbox.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~walters/rpm-ostree-toolbox-2014.8.30.g4831a88-1.el7.src.rpm Description: Extra tools for rpm-ostree Fedora Account System Username: walters
I will review this.
(In reply to Patrick Uiterwijk from comment #1) > I will review this. Thanks! Note this is a split off from the previous rpm-ostree, which was reviewed here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074102 The main thing you might notice is that the Version: field in the sample spec doesn't actually match the src.rpm. That's because I use some tools to auto-update the spec from git. For importing into Fedora, I'll change Version to match the tarballs, but until then I try to avoid editing the spec file to build.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ==== ISSUES ==== [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: You are missing buildrequires for rpm-devel and hawkey-devel [!]: Have a sane version number Note: I see three different version numbers! The spec file you uploaded seperately is 2014.1-1, but its changelog says 2014.5-1 The spec file that the package is built on has version 2014.8.30.{gittag}-1 I understand it takes some extra time for you, but please just make sure you use a single, consistent, version number. Currently you not only make reviewing harder, but I also have no clue which version I'm going to approve. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: You are using both the %{..}-style macros, and the $...-style variables ($RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install for example). Please use only one of those. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Note: Please use package-based requires instead of path-based requires wherever possible (for ostree, gjs and guestmount for example) [!]: Upstream URL correct. Note: Please replace the Source0: with a URL to the sources, for github sources check: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: see Upstream URL comment [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Note: You have an explicit requirement on libguestfs ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: 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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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. [!]: 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. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: 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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rpm-ostree-toolbox-2014.8.30.g4831a88-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm rpm-ostree-toolbox-2014.8.30.g4831a88-1.fc21.src.rpm rpm-ostree-toolbox.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libguestfs-gobject rpm-ostree-toolbox.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libguestfs-xfs rpm-ostree-toolbox.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2014.5-1 ['2014.8.30.g4831a88-1.fc21', '2014.8.30.g4831a88-1'] rpm-ostree-toolbox.x86_64: E: no-binary rpm-ostree-toolbox.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rpm-ostree-toolbox.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm-ostree-toolbox rpm-ostree-toolbox.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rpm-ostree-toolbox-2014.8.30.g4831a88.tar.xz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rpm-ostree-toolbox rpm-ostree-toolbox.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libguestfs-gobject rpm-ostree-toolbox.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libguestfs-xfs rpm-ostree-toolbox.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2014.5-1 ['2014.8.30.g4831a88-1.fc21', '2014.8.30.g4831a88-1'] rpm-ostree-toolbox.x86_64: E: no-binary rpm-ostree-toolbox.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rpm-ostree-toolbox.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm-ostree-toolbox 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rpm-ostree-toolbox (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/gjs /usr/bin/guestmount /usr/bin/ostree kernel libguestfs-gobject libguestfs-xfs Provides -------- rpm-ostree-toolbox: rpm-ostree-toolbox rpm-ostree-toolbox(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --prebuilt -n rpm-ostree-toolbox Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
> [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Fixed (I dropped the dependencies). > Note: You are missing buildrequires for rpm-devel and hawkey-devel > [!]: Have a sane version number Fixed, the new version is 2014.11. > [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > Note: You are using both the %{..}-style macros, and the $...-style > variables ($RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install for example). > Please use only one of those. Fixed. > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > Note: Please use package-based requires instead of path-based > requires wherever possible (for ostree, gjs and guestmount for example) Ok...I tend to prefer path-based requires because they allow me to find the binary without having to know the arbitrary package name. For example, /usr/bin/guestmount is contained in "libguestfs-tools-c". > [!]: Upstream URL correct. > Note: Please replace the Source0: with a URL to the sources, for > github sources check: I don't use the github source guidelines because they only work for github. I use this generic tooling to make snapshots of sources that come from GNOME too for example. My tooling around "git archive" is generic to any git repository while still being compatible with RPM versioning requirements. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066176#c5 I explained this a bit more in the comment. > [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > Note: You have an explicit requirement on libguestfs That's expected since the upstream project name is "libguestfs". rpmlint is wrong here. New version here: http://fedorapeople.org/~walters/rpm-ostree-toolbox-2014.11-1.el7.src.rpm http://fedorapeople.org/~walters/rpm-ostree-toolbox.spec
Okay, thanks for fixing those. Package has been APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rpm-ostree-toolbox Short Description: Extra tools for rpm-ostree Upstream URL: https://github.com/cgwalters/rpm-ostree-toolbox Owners: walters Branches: epel7 f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).