Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~philipp/tacacs+-F4.0.4.29a-2.fc24.src.rpm SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~philipp/tacacs+-F4.0.4.29a-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm Description: Tacacs+ authentication/authorization/accounting daaemon Fedora Account System Username: philipp
Grrr... Copy&paste issues w/ my VM. Let's try it again: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~philipp/tacacs+.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~philipp/tacacs+-F4.0.4.29a-2.fc24.src.rpm Description: Tacacs+ authentication/authorization/accounting daaemon Fedora Account System Username: philipp
Here's the output from rpmlint on both files: tacacs+.src: W: invalid-url Source0: tacacs-F4.0.4.29a.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. tacacs+.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tac_convert Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. tacacs+.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/tac_plus The service is enabled by default after "chkconfig --add"; for security reasons, most services should not be. Use "-" as the default runlevel in the init script's "chkconfig:" line and/or remove the "Default-Start:" LSB keyword to fix this if appropriate for this service. tacacs+.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name tac_plus ('tacacs+', 'tacacs+d') The init script name should be the same as the package name in lower case, or one with 'd' appended if it invokes a process by that name. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Yes, the Source: value will need to be updated. When the reviews are done and I commit a final version of the .spec file to github, I will tag and publish a tarball which agrees with what's in the final .spec file. There is no man page for tac_convert, but tac_convert is a Perl script. Use the source, Luke! Regarding the init.d file... not sure if I should mangle it with a sed script to replace "chkconfig: 2345" with "chkconfig: -" or leave it as is but explicitly disable it with "chkconfig tac_plus off" in the %post. Incoherent script name... again, trying to preserve the sources wherever possible. This is what it was called upstream. Don't want to diverge too much from that. Plus it will likely have a ripple effect: the daemon name will change to agree with the init.d script name, then the config file for the daemon will need to change too, then the man page for the config file needs to change... It snowballs.
Updating the template: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~philipp/tacacs.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~philipp/tacacs-F4.0.4.29b-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Tacacs+ authentication/authorization/accounting daaemon Fedora Account System Username: philipp
Updated rpmlint: $ rpmlint -i /home/philipp/rpmbuild/SRPMS/tacacs-F4.0.4.29b-1.fc24.src.rpm /home/philipp/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/tacacs-F4.0.4.29b-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm tacacs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: tacacs-F4.0.4.29b.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. tacacs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tac_convert Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $
Did my own run of fedora-review. Results here: This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/philipp/git/tacacs+/1392649-tacacs/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/logrotate.d [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config(missingok,noreplace) %verify(not md5 size mtime) %ghost /etc/tac_plus.conf [ ]: 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. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 81920 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: 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: [ ]: 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tacacs- debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: tacacs-F4.0.4.29b-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm tacacs-debuginfo-F4.0.4.29b-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm tacacs-F4.0.4.29b-1.fc26.src.rpm tacacs.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/tac_plus.conf 0 tacacs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tac_convert tacacs.src:123: W: macro-in-comment %config tacacs.src:123: W: macro-in-comment %verify tacacs.src:123: W: macro-in-comment %ghost tacacs.src:123: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} tacacs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: tacacs-F4.0.4.29b.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tacacs-debuginfo-F4.0.4.29b-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- tacacs.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/tac_plus.conf 0 tacacs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tac_convert 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- tacacs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl config(tacacs) ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libnsl.so.1()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libwrap.so.0()(64bit) pam perl python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd-units tacacs-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- tacacs: config(tacacs) tacacs tacacs(x86-64) tacacs-debuginfo: tacacs-debuginfo tacacs-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- Using local file /home/philipp/git/tacacs+/tac_plus.sysvinit as upstream file:///home/philipp/git/tacacs+/tac_plus.sysvinit : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3f88831911b31c2bbad921ffd1d6c75716be983c2f047f31ca42231573a9e92a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3f88831911b31c2bbad921ffd1d6c75716be983c2f047f31ca42231573a9e92a Using local file /home/philipp/git/tacacs+/tacacs.service as upstream file:///home/philipp/git/tacacs+/tacacs.service : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dfb0b9e9676b66c4b707c025ed85d3cd89fff3f0d6154bac7b81f717ac995419 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dfb0b9e9676b66c4b707c025ed85d3cd89fff3f0d6154bac7b81f717ac995419 Using local file /home/philipp/git/tacacs+/tacacs-F4.0.4.29b.tar.gz as upstream file:///home/philipp/git/tacacs+/tacacs-F4.0.4.29b.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 54280a75630a6becb9c2907a4181f809f8abcc87eb67e5b5273d01f0554894e2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 54280a75630a6becb9c2907a4181f809f8abcc87eb67e5b5273d01f0554894e2 Using local file /home/philipp/git/tacacs+/tacacs.logrotate as upstream file:///home/philipp/git/tacacs+/tacacs.logrotate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 726cf8e814071adbfd81e41fa4d5968aa4b444a2d15a87bc663abe31cd4e6b02 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 726cf8e814071adbfd81e41fa4d5968aa4b444a2d15a87bc663abe31cd4e6b02 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1392649 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
do you want to package it to EL6 ?
(In reply to Itamar Reis Peixoto from comment #6) > do you want to package it to EL6 ? I see some %if 0%{?el6} entries in latest upload. Will you continue with the review? Otherwise, I could do this package review in conjunction with a swap for one of my review requests.
I am asking because the most interesting thing is to package it to el7+ and Fedora, el6 end of life are in 2020.
Are you interested in a review swap? Maybe with bug #1563831.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
Will rebase and the code review.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.