Spec URL: https://eldermarco.fedorapeople.org/files/specs/plowshare-modules-legacy.spec SRPM URL: https://eldermarco.fedorapeople.org/files/srpms/plowshare-modules-legacy-0-0.1.20150423gitfd038c5.fc21.src.rpm Description: This package contains modules for plowshare package Fedora Account System Username: eldermarco
Package Review ============== Legend: [+] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [+]: 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: "GPL (v3 or later)". [+]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/plowshare, /usr/share/plowshare/modules [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [+]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [+]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [+]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [+]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+]: Package does not generate any conflict. [+]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [+]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [+]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [+]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [?]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 %license. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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: [!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Packager: Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <Pahan> Found : Vendor: fedora See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Latest commit 098d61824beb108d146cfa5b73eb8d9b05400fe3 and I do not see any tags or releases. [+]: 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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [+]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Main issue: Offsite (https://github.com/mcrapet/plowshare-modules-legacy) said it "Plowshare legacy & unmaintained modules". So, it useless for packaging. Do you plan maintain that repository if author do not willing do that? It is stop issue. As we discuss in mail list apparently you should choose different method of packaging that.
Hello Pavel, thank you! [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/plowshare, /usr/share/plowshare/modules Those directories belongs to plowshare package. Maybe, the package (and plowshare) must own the directory /usr/share/plowshare/modules. (?) [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed I want to submit the package to EPEL. I think the section is needed in this case. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required I want to submit the package to EPEL. I think the section is needed in this case. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Latest commit 098d61824beb108d146cfa5b73eb8d9b05400fe3 and I do not see any tags or releases. There are no tags or releases. Main issue: Offsite (https://github.com/mcrapet/plowshare-modules-legacy) said it "Plowshare legacy & unmaintained modules". So, it useless for packaging. Do you plan maintain that repository if author do not willing do that? It is stop issue. As we discuss in mail list apparently you should choose different method of packaging that. No, I don't. The core package depends on the modules, since it will not work without them. Thus, maintaining a base package without modules does not make any sense, in my opinion. This is the repository which users can install locally through plowmod. Thank you!
(In reply to Elder Marco from comment #2) > Those directories belongs to plowshare package. Maybe, the package (and > plowshare) must own the directory /usr/share/plowshare/modules. (?) Sure. And package listed as require. > > [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: %defattr present but not needed > > I want to submit the package to EPEL. I think the section is needed in this > case. For epel less then 7? Only epel 6 an early. > [!]: Latest version is packaged. > Latest commit 098d61824beb108d146cfa5b73eb8d9b05400fe3 and I do not see any > tags or releases. > > There are no tags or releases. If upstream do not willing do them, it is OK to package just by commits.
*** Bug 1262378 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
> For epel less then 7? Only epel 6 an early. Yes. EPEL 6. > If upstream do not willing do them, it is OK to package just by commits. OK. Thank you!
%defattr hasn't been needed since RHEL4. Group:, BuildRoot: and %clean and the first line of your %install section are also not needed at all (on any release, including EPEL5).
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
Hi, Sorry for my late response. I've been busy working with new projects. I really like plowshare, but I do not have time to mantain this package anymore. Feel free to take it, if you want.