Spec URL: https://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/fedora-motd.spec SRPM URL: https://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/fedora-motd-0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Generate dynamic MOTD: Message of the day, for Fedora Fedora Account System Username: rtnpro
rtnpro's scratch build of fedora-motd-0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13036702
- Please add /etc/motdgen.d to the %files section, so that this package owns that directory - Add dependencies for 'pam' and 'crontabs' and 'setup' if you're going to use the /etc/pam.d, etc/cron.daily, and /etc/profile.d directories - /etc/cron.daily/motdgen-cache-updateinfo is marked as a config file, but is executable Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/motdgen.d [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/cron.daily, /etc/motdgen.d, /etc/pam.d, /etc/profile.d, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/dnf-plugins [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 [-]: 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. 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: 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 %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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: fedora-motd-0.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm fedora-motd-0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm fedora-motd.noarch: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/motdgen-cache-updateinfo fedora-motd.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/motdgen.sh fedora-motd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary motdgen fedora-motd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary motdgen-cache-updateinfo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- fedora-motd.noarch: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/motdgen-cache-updateinfo fedora-motd.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/motdgen.sh fedora-motd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary motdgen-cache-updateinfo fedora-motd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary motdgen 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- fedora-motd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python config(fedora-motd) python(abi) Provides -------- fedora-motd: config(fedora-motd) fedora-motd Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rtnpro/fedora-motd/archive/962b9ab3936579a531ce31eaac9044dd388bbfcf.tar.gz#/fedora-motd-962b9ab.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 451a400ea42d3474f41cd67cdf14032ff6ffc3361e90fc03af55ca253e870875 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 451a400ea42d3474f41cd67cdf14032ff6ffc3361e90fc03af55ca253e870875 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1309792 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Hey Jared, (In reply to Jared Smith from comment #2) > - Please add /etc/motdgen.d to the %files section, so that this package owns > that directory Fixed! > - Add dependencies for 'pam' and 'crontabs' and 'setup' if you're going to > use the /etc/pam.d, etc/cron.daily, and /etc/profile.d directories Fixed! > - /etc/cron.daily/motdgen-cache-updateinfo is marked as a config file, but > is > executable Most of the cron scripts are marked as executable. I asked @threebean about this, and he suggested to ignore this lint error. I have pushed the updated SPEC and SRPM file at: Spec URL: https://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/fedora-motd.spec SRPM URL: https://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/fedora-motd-0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Let me know what you think.
Just two additional comments: 1) There's no reason to list out the following two files, since you've already specified the directory which contains them: %{_sysconfdir}/motdgen.d/01-uptime.sh %{_sysconfdir}/motdgen.d/02-updateinfo.sh 2) Do you really want those files marked as %config(noreplace)? That means if you push out an updated version of those scripts, that the original file will stay in place and that the new version will be pushed out with a .rpmnew extension. Since these really aren't config files and are scripts, I'm assuming that you *would* want them replaced in the case of an upgrade. Please address these two issues, and I'll gladly approve the package. Also, I should be in IRC most of the day today if you want to discuss.
(In reply to Jared Smith from comment #4) > Just two additional comments: > > 1) There's no reason to list out the following two files, since you've > already specified the directory which contains them: > > %{_sysconfdir}/motdgen.d/01-uptime.sh > %{_sysconfdir}/motdgen.d/02-updateinfo.sh Removed them! > 2) Do you really want those files marked as %config(noreplace)? That means > if you push out an updated version of those scripts, that the original file > will stay in place and that the new version will be pushed out with a > .rpmnew extension. Since these really aren't config files and are scripts, > I'm assuming that you *would* want them replaced in the case of an upgrade. Since most of my config files are actually scripts, I have removed "%config(noreplace)" for them. Let me know if I need to fix something else.
Package is approved.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/fedora-motd
fedora-motd-0.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-daa2704927
fedora-motd-0.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8bbded4ea0
fedora-motd-0.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8bbded4ea0
fedora-motd-0.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-daa2704927
fedora-motd-0.1.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ed7cdc54b9
fedora-motd-0.1.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-41dc7c35fc
fedora-motd-0.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
fedora-motd-0.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
fedora-motd-0.1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ed7cdc54b9
fedora-motd-0.1.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-41dc7c35fc
fedora-motd-0.1.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
fedora-motd-0.1.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-23df51d4f5
fedora-motd-0.1.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-fa9e77c232
fedora-motd-0.1.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-fa9e77c232
fedora-motd-0.1.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-23df51d4f5
fedora-motd-0.1.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
fedora-motd-0.1.3-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c8948356b9
fedora-motd-0.1.3-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c8948356b9
fedora-motd-0.1.3-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.