Spec URL: https://gitlab.cern.ch/fts/webfts/raw/master/packaging/rpm/webfts.spec SRPM URL: https://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/fts3/repos/el6/x86_64/webfts-2.2.5-1.el6.src.rpm Description: Web interface for FTS3 Fedora Account System Username: andreamanzi
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/webfts
Build fine in Rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11862180
In general, it looks mostly OK, except a couple of things: 1. It is not commented how to get/generate the corresponding .tar.gz 2. It includes build scripts that are outside the scope of this rpm
thanks i have fixed the spec for 1, regarding 2, build scripts are only present on the srpm i linked built with jenkins, the srpm in Koji are not affected New build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11863036 New srpm https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3036/11863036/webfts-2.2.5-1.fc24.src.rpm
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. [--] 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. [--] 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. [--] -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. [--] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags [--] 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 [--] Parallel make [--] Subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [OK] 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. [--] 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.
Output from rpmlint: webfts.noarch: W: no-documentation webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/css/site-tour-styles/custom-site-tour.scss webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/site-tour/introJs/bower.json webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/paraFiles/js/main.js webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/paraFiles/js/waypoints.js webfts.noarch: E: backup-file-in-package /var/www/webfts/css/site-tour-styles/site-tour.scss~ webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/paraFiles/js/jquery.easing.1.3.js webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/paraFiles/js/jquery.easing.1.3.min.js webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/site-tour/introJs/Makefile webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/site-tour/introJs/package.json webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/css/site-tour-styles/custom-site-tour.css webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/site-tour/introJs/introjs-rtl.css webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/paraFiles/js/jquery.stellar.min.js webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/site-tour/introJs/component.json webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/site-tour/introJs/intro.js webfts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /var/www/webfts/site-tour/introJs/BUILD/BUILD.js 0644L /usr/bin/env webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/site-tour/introJs/README.md webfts.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/webfts/site-tour/introJs/introjsProbChro.css 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 17 errors, 1 warnings. Those 'script-without-shebang' are indeed marked as executables, when they probably shouldn't be.
srpm wich fixes rpmlint errors: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/6285/11866285/webfts-2.2.5-1.fc24.src.rpm
new srpm with other fixed for rpmlint errors https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/2082/11902082/webfts-2.2.5-1.fc24.src.rpm
Looks good now # rpmlint webfts-2.2.5-1.fc24.noarch.rpm webfts.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.