Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 624023
Review Request: reprepro - Debian package repository producer
Last modified: 2012-06-30 14:28:42 EDT
Spec URL: http://git.ergo-project.org/?p=kolab-fedora.git;a=blob_plain;f=el5/custom-el5-kolabsys.com/SPECS/reprepro.spec;hb=1fc6ca169df29d3c7dac2cebccb6f3ea0763a666 SRPM URL: http://koji.ergo-project.org/packages/reprepro/4.2.0/4.el5.buildsys/src/reprepro-4.2.0-4.el5.buildsys.src.rpm Description: reprepro is a tool to manage a repository of Debian packages (.deb, .udeb, .dsc, ...). It stores files either being injected manually or downloaded from some other repository (partially) mirrored into one pool/ hierarchy. Managed packages and files are stored in a Berkeley DB, so no database server is needed. Checking signatures of mirrored repositories and creating signatures of the generated Package indices is supported.
New SPEC: http://git.kolabsys.com/rpm/reprepro/plain/reprepro.spec?h=f13/custom-kolabsys.com&id=7d314c2fe42a25231adee31b34ed24fa5df0ae96 New SRPM: http://mirror.kolabsys.com/pub/fedora/apt-utils/f13/SRPMS/reprepro-4.2.0-3.fc12.src.rpm
Spec and srpm don't match, spec is at -4 while package is still -3. As there is no -4 package in the repo I have taken -3 with the spec of -4. REVIEW FOR f0df6898fc563cff1ef694fbc772842a reprepro-4.2.0-3.fc12.src.rpm MUST Items: FIX - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm reprepro.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udeb -> deb, u deb, udder reprepro.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dsc -> dc, sc, desc reprepro.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US indices -> induces, indies, indicts reprepro.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Utilities reprepro.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udeb -> deb, u deb, udder reprepro.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dsc -> dc, sc, desc reprepro.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US indices -> induces, indies, indicts reprepro.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Utilities 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Can be ignored: spelling-error Needs to be fixed: non-standard-group Development/Utilities -> Development/Tools OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv2 only) OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license FIX - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 72605173cccdbc805f3037824064895d OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates (none) OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage TBD - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application (no docs included!) N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package N/A - MUST: library files that end in .so are in the -devel package. N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - Should: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: FIX - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: functions as described. N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane (no scriptlets used). N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin OK - SHOULD: package contains man pages for binaries/scripts. Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid OK - Compiler flags ok OK - Debuginfo complete OK - SHOULD: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. N/A - SHOULD: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. TODO items: - Fix the items marked with FIX - Use the full length of 80 characters for the description - Requires db4 and gpgme are not needed, I doubt bzip2 is. Libraries should not have explicit requires. - Add AUTHORS, COPYING, ChangeLog, README, NEWS, TODO, docs/FAQ, docs/manual.html, docs/short-howto, to %doc - You also want might want to include the examples from the docs folder, but make sure to remove the executable bits. - Do not specify the manpage with extension gz, we might very well switch to another compression method. - Timestamp of the source tarball does not match (at least in -3 srpm), please download it again, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps - Changelog doesn't follow any of the allowed formats, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
*** Bug 720181 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Since this post seems not very active(2010!) I propose my own SPEC and SRPM URL (if this is permitted) http://repo.virer.net/centos/6/SPECS/reprepro.spec http://repo.virer.net/centos/6/SRPMS/reprepro-4.10.0-1.el6.src.rpm
Your spec does not address all the issues I found in the review. - manpages still have the extension hardcoded You even introduced some new problems: - %{_usr}/bin should be %{_bindir} - bzip2-libs is not a -devel package - Various unneeded explicit Requires - Source1 not needed, it's the same as COPYING form the tarball - not all docs are included, e.g. the examples are missing If you want to take over packaging and maintenance of this package, please submit a new review request and mark this one a duplicate of it. Thanks in advance!
New bug reported https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828188 Please close this one
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 828188 ***