SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/frantisekz/taskotron-vault/fedora-28-x86_64/00758210-vault/vault.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/frantisekz/taskotron-vault/fedora-28-x86_64/00758210-vault/vault-0.0.1-1.fc28.src.rpm Vault stores and controls encrypted data like passwords, API keys or other secrets. Implements bucket-based access control, and secret versioning. Upstream GIT: https://pagure.io/taskotron/vault
I'm quite busy with my own packages, that's why I don't have the time for reviews. - %attr(755,root,root) shouldn't be needed - Add the Release info in the %changelog: * Tue May 22 2018 Josef Skladanka <jskladan> - 0.0.1-1 - The source URL is 404: https://qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/releases/vault/vault-0.0.1.tar.gz - The install fails with: DEBUG util.py:483: BUILDSTDERR: Error: DEBUG util.py:483: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:483: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides python2-pycrypto needed by vault-0.0.1-1.fc29.noarch This package doesn't seem to exist in Fedora. - Split the descriptionline to stay below 80 characters per line: vault.src: E: description-line-too-long C Vault stores and controls encrypted data like passwords, API keys or other secrets. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/vault/review-vault/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: 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: [-]: 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). [?]: 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. [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: vault-0.0.1-1.fc29.noarch.rpm vault-0.0.1-1.fc29.src.rpm vault.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versioning -> versifying, version, overseeing vault.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Vault stores and controls encrypted data like passwords, API keys or other secrets. vault.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.1 ['0.0.1-1.fc29', '0.0.1-1'] vault.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vault vault.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versioning -> versifying, version, overseeing vault.src: E: description-line-too-long C Vault stores and controls encrypted data like passwords, API keys or other secrets. vault.src: W: invalid-url Source0: vault-0.0.1.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/frantisekz/taskotron-vault/fedora-28-x86_64/00758550-vault/vault.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/frantisekz/taskotron-vault/fedora-28-x86_64/00758550-vault/vault-0.0.1-1.fc28.src.rpm Thanks. I think I've fixed everything you have pointed out, but: "Add the Release info in the %changelog:" - this is also initial upstream release, so I don' t have any Release Info. Thanks!!! > I'm quite busy with my own packages, that's why I don't have the time for reviews. Let me know off-bug if you want some help.
>"Add the Release info in the %changelog:" - this is also initial upstream release, so I don' t have any Release Info. I'm talking about the SPEC release field, it is 1 and should be added after the Version in the %changelog: * Tue May 22 2018 Josef Skladanka <jskladan> - 0.0.1-1 What about python2-crypto? Without it you can't install the package and you'll get an error in Bodhi. Please add a Review request for it (preferably using pyp2rpm)
> What about python2-crypto This is normally packaged in Fedora: $ rpm -q python2-crypto python2-crypto-2.6.1-22.fc28.x86_64 >I'm talking about the SPEC release field Oh, I misunderstood it. SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/frantisekz/taskotron-vault/fedora-28-x86_64/00758593-vault/vault.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/frantisekz/taskotron-vault/fedora-28-x86_64/00758593-vault/vault-0.0.1-1.fc28.src.rpm
Package approved.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vault