Bug 1461769 - Review Request: module-macros - provides macros for module development
Summary: Review Request: module-macros - provides macros for module development
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Björn 'besser82' Esser
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-06-15 09:40 UTC by clime
Modified: 2017-07-07 22:55 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-06-28 00:50:17 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
besser82: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description clime 2017-06-15 09:40:24 UTC
Spec URL: http://clime.cz/module-macros.spec

SRPM URL: http://clime.cz/module-macros-0.1-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description: This package provides macros for module development. So far, there is only one macro '%module', that can be used to mark a given source package as a module. Hence, a different set of constraints (different from Fedora packaging guidelines) can be applied on it. An example module that uses this concept is here: https://pagure.io/django-app

Fedora Account System Username: clime

Comment 1 Björn 'besser82' Esser 2017-06-15 10:06:00 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


===== 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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.

     --->  License is fine, since this is covered by the Fedora CLA.

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d,
     /usr/lib/rpm

     --->  The package should Requires: rpm, for proper directory ownership.

[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

     ---> See comment about directory ownership.

[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.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local


===== 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.
[-]: 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.

     --->  Package is noarch'ed.

[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.

     --->  Files should be installed using `install -p`

[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]: 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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: module-macros-0.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          module-macros-0.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
module-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag
module-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
module-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation
module-macros.src: W: no-url-tag
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
module-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag
module-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
module-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.


Requires
--------
module-macros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Provides
--------
module-macros:
    module-macros


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 1461769
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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6


===== Solution =====

Issues are present, but those are no blockers.  Please consider fixing them during import.  Package APPROVED!

Comment 2 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-06-16 13:07:31 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/module-macros

Comment 3 Fedora Update System 2017-06-16 16:00:46 UTC
module-macros-0.1-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-800c975894

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2017-06-16 16:00:54 UTC
module-macros-0.1-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-00037c7e84

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2017-06-18 03:52:36 UTC
module-macros-0.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-800c975894

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2017-06-18 06:20:41 UTC
module-macros-0.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-00037c7e84

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2017-06-28 00:50:17 UTC
module-macros-0.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2017-07-07 22:55:55 UTC
module-macros-0.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.