Spec URL: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/dlrn/dlrn.spec SRPM URL: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/dlrn/dlrn-0.4.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: DLRN builds and maintains yum repositories following OpenStack upstream commits. Fedora Account System Username: jpena Koji scratch build available at https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22075492
- RPMlint warnings: dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /etc/dlrn dlrn dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /etc/dlrn dlrn dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /etc/dlrn/projects.ini dlrn dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /etc/dlrn/projects.ini dlrn dlrn.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/dlrn /usr/bin/dlrn-2.7 dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/dlrn dlrn dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /usr/share/dlrn dlrn dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/dlrn dlrn dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/dlrn dlrn dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/dlrn/data dlrn dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/dlrn/data dlrn What is the rationale behind using 755 for etc, share and var? 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 61 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/dlrn/review-dlrn/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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. [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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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 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]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dlrn-doc , python2-dlrn , python3-dlrn [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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.
Thanks for the review. Actually, I think it makes more sense to make permissions 750/640 for directories and files, I'll change that. About the other warnings: - The package creates its own user and assigns the config/var directories to it, so I guess there is no way to avoid the non-standard-uid / non-standard-gid warnings. - The dangling symlink /usr/bin/dlrn points to /usr/bin/dlrn-2.7, which is owned by the python2-dlrn subpackage. I could move the symlink to that package if it makes more sense. My idea was that, if we switch the default to python3, we could just change the symlink in the main package, and its dependency.
I have updated the file and directory permissions, and bumped the version to include the latest upstream release (0.5.0). - Spec: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/dlrn/dlrn.spec - SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/dlrn/dlrn-0.5.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Koji scratch build at https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22103479
Okay, package accepted.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dlrn. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes.
dlrn-0.5.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-2186a6625c
dlrn-0.5.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.