Spec URL: https://flo.fedorapeople.org/postproof.spec SRPM URL:https://flo.fedorapeople.org/postproof-0-1.20150324gita7427efd.fc21.src.rpm Description: Collect messages from a Postfix mail queue and preserve them as incident. Fedora Account System Username: flo
successful koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9359005
Taken :) Review will follow soon :)
Done, IMHO the package looks fine, just the Release tag should be fixed. Greetings, Christian Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ====> Is a false positive, package uses %license tag correctly - Please fix the Release tag ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: 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. [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. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [-]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ====> IMHO the package is a pre-release snapshot, so Release should be 0.1.2015... rather than 1.2015... Another suggestion: * Use shortcommit macro in Release tag rather than snapshot directly (would do the same for the date, e.g. 0.1.%{date}git%{shortcommit} [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]: 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]: 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. ===== 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). [x]: 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. ===> Is noarch, so will work everywhere, where postfix works [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) ==> Use the correct spec on import (with RHBZ #) [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: postproof-0-1.20150324gita7427efd.fc23.noarch.rpm postproof-0-1.20150324gita7427efd.fc23.src.rpm postproof.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/review/1205361-postproof/srpm/postproof.spec 2015-03-29 13:37:31.319231261 +0200 +++ /home/review/1205361-postproof/srpm-unpacked/postproof.spec 2015-03-24 19:36:03.000000000 +0100 @@ -7,5 +7,5 @@ Summary: Mail abuse incident tool -License: LGPLv3 +License: GPLv3 URL: https://github.com/sys4/%{name} Source0: https://github.com/sys4/%{name}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz @@ -39,3 +39,3 @@ %changelog * Tue Mar 24 2015 Florian Lehner <dev> 0-1.20150324gita7427efd -- Initial packaging (#1205361) +- Initial packaging (#) ====> Be sure to use the right one at import Requires -------- postproof (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash postfix Provides -------- postproof: postproof Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sys4/postproof/archive/a7427efd771a3848537b79ca9711c7d9656142e5/postproof-a7427efd771a3848537b79ca9711c7d9656142e5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 83b3574ec8a8895f3b6ef5fe933d19672e4ee5766ae9fdf8908fdbd01f5883f2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 83b3574ec8a8895f3b6ef5fe933d19672e4ee5766ae9fdf8908fdbd01f5883f2 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1205361 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
@Specs I forgot: The right one is the one in Spec URL, the one in SRPM is outdated
Hi Christian Thanks for taking the review! I fixed the issues, you mentioned: Spec URL: https://flo.fedorapeople.org/postproof.spec SRPM URL: https://flo.fedorapeople.org/postproof-0-0.2.20150324gita7427efd.fc21.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9359542 Cheers, flo
Looks fine now => Approved :)
Thanks Christian! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: postproof Short Description: Mail abuse incident tool Upstream URL: https://github.com/sys4/postproof Owners: flo Branches: f20 f21 f22 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it now.