Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rimolive/tini-rpm/master/tini.spec SRPM URL: https://rimolive.fedorapeople.org/tini-0.18.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Tini is the simplest init you could think of. All Tini does is spawn a single child (Tini is meant to be run in a container), and wait for it to exit all the while reaping zombies and performing signal forwarding. Fedora Account System Username:rimolive
Thanks, Ricardo! There are a few things to address here; my review follows. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Rpm(s) have files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local: /usr/local tini-0.18.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Package contains no static executables. - don't ship tini-static [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. - use %{optflags} or $RPM_OPT_FLAGS in the CFLAGS setting [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. - changelog entries must include version numbers; see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs [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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). - use %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. - don't install into /usr/local/bin [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. - gcc require is unnecessary - glibc-static require is unnecessary since we shouldn't ship static tini [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines - use %cmake macro (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Cmake) - don't install into /usr/local - use %license macro for the license file instead of %doc (see here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_packages_in_Cloud_Image#Documentation) - include Summary field (current contents of %description are fine) - expand description with material from upstream [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 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]: 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. ===== 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. [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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. - add a %check to run upstream tests if possible [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tini-0.18.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm tini-0.18.0-1.fc26.src.rpm tini.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ok -> OK, och, pk tini.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C ok tini.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit tini.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog tini.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/local/bin/tini-static tini.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-usr-local /usr/local/bin/tini tini.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-usr-local /usr/local/bin/tini-static tini.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ok -> OK, och, pk tini.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C ok tini.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit tini.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory tini.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ok -> OK, och, pk tini.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C ok tini.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit tini.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog tini.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/local/bin/tini-static tini.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/local/bin/tini-static tini.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-usr-local /usr/local/bin/tini tini.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-usr-local /usr/local/bin/tini-static 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- tini (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- tini: tini tini(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/krallin/tini/archive/v0.18.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1097675352d6317b547e73f9dc7c6839fd0bb0d96dafc2e5c95506bb324049a2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1097675352d6317b547e73f9dc7c6839fd0bb0d96dafc2e5c95506bb324049a2 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1608949 Buildroot used: fedora-26-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
All package review pain points are fixed now. Could you please review it again?
Hello, - I know you removed "BuildRequires: gcc" following the first review request. However, the package does not build anymore on Rawhide or Fedora30 without a build dependency to gcc. Furthermore, it is now requested by guidelines [1] to list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang for C/C++ projects. - Your changelog entry has not the standard format: version number should be on the same line as the timestamp: * Wed Jul 18 2018 Ricardo Martinelli de Oliveira <ricardo.martinelli.oliveira> - 0.18.0 - Initial version - Static executable: You removed "tini-static" following the first review request. This is indeed following Fedora Packaging guidelines [2]. However, Docker depends on a statically-linked "tini" binary. Currently, package "moby-engine" [3] builds and bundles its own "tini". I'd like to depend on your project instead of building a separate version of tini, to follow Fedora Packaging Guidelines. However, that would require having "tini-static" in this package. Do you think it could be an exception to the guidelines, given that: - tini depends only on libc - package "moby-engine" currently already ships a statically linked version of "tini". [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/#_buildrequires_and_requires [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_statically_linking_executables [3] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/moby-engine/
This package review is stalled (cf https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews). Please respond if you want to keep this package review open.
Hi Ricardo, Please respond to this ticket if you want to keep it open.
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.