Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/centos-packager/centos-packager.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/centos-packager/centos-packager-0.7.0-5.fc35.src.rpm Description: Tools to help set up a CentOS packaging environment and interact with the Community Build System (CBS). Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66731583
Note: this is currently packaged in the arrfab/fasjson-client copr. See https://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/CentosPackager and https://git.centos.org/centos/centos-packager/issue/7 for more information.
Taking this review.
> %doc COPYING Please mark this as a license file properly.
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/centos-packager/centos-packager.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/centos-packager/centos-packager-0.7.0-6.fc35.src.rpm Changelog: - Use the correct macro for the license file
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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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 ===== 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: 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: centos-packager-0.7.0-6.fc35.noarch.rpm centos-packager-0.7.0-6.fc35.src.rpm centos-packager.noarch: W: no-documentation centos-packager.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/cbs koji centos-packager.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cbs centos-packager.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary centos-cert 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- centos-packager.noarch: W: no-documentation centos-packager.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/cbs koji centos-packager.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cbs centos-packager.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary centos-cert 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- centos-packager (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash bc config(centos-packager) curl fasjson-client koji krb5-workstation mock openssh-clients openssl python3-fasjson-client redhat-rpm-config rpm-build rpmdevtools rpmlint Provides -------- centos-packager: centos-packager config(centos-packager) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1953690 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Python, R, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Review notes: > [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. This is easy to fix, just add "-p" to "install" commands to preserve timestamps. Please fix this on import. Otherwise, this looks good, so... PACKAGE APPROVED.
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo centos-packager 1953690 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33790
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/centos-packager
FEDORA-2021-0df12429d9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0df12429d9
FEDORA-2021-6249d1cdaa has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6249d1cdaa
FEDORA-2021-f7c85ad7ff has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f7c85ad7ff
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-239c87f476 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-239c87f476
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-30e5a3e918 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-30e5a3e918
FEDORA-2021-6249d1cdaa has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-6249d1cdaa \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6249d1cdaa See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-239c87f476 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-239c87f476 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-0df12429d9 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-0df12429d9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0df12429d9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-30e5a3e918 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-30e5a3e918 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-f7c85ad7ff has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-f7c85ad7ff \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f7c85ad7ff See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-0df12429d9 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-6249d1cdaa has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-239c87f476 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.