Spec URL: http://sbradley.fedorapeople.org/sx/SRPMS/SPECS/sx.spec SRPM URL: http://sbradley.fedorapeople.org/sx/SRPMS/sx-2.03-7.fc12.src.rpm Description: Hello, I have packaged up sx and I would appreciate a review so that I can get sx into Fedora Extras. Adam Stokes(sos maintainer) said that he will sponsor me for this project. sxconsole is a tool used to extract various report types and then analyze those extracted reports with plugins. The tool also provides an archiving structure so that all the compressed and extracted reports are saved to a directory. This tool was developed for sysreport/sosreports but has been expaned to include any report that has a class defined.
Legend: + - Ok. - - Error. +/- - It item acceptable, but I strongly recommend enhancement. = - N/A. MUST Items [-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint *.rpm *.spec sx.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugins -> plug ins, plug-ins, plugging sx.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Tool to extract reports and run plugins against those extracted reports. sx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug ins, plug-ins, plugging sx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sysreport -> misreport, Shreveport, reportage sx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sosreports -> misreports, misreport, spaceports sx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US expaned -> expand, expanded, ex paned sx.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Tool to extract reports and run plugins against those extracted reports. sx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sysreport -> misreport, Shreveport, reportage sx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sosreports -> misreports, misreport, spaceports sx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US expaned -> expand, expanded, ex paned sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/plugins/cluster.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/plugins/opensosreport.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/plugins/lib/clusterconfevaluator.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/plugins/yakuake.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/plugins/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/tools.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/plugins/lib/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/reports/sosreport.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/reports/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/plugins/lib/clusternode.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/plugins/satellitedebug.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/reports/satellitedebug.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/plugins/checksysreport.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/reports/sysreport.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/reportextractor.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/tarball.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/rploader.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/logwriter.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/plugins/lib/clusternodes.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sx/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env sx.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxconsole 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 20 errors, 11 warnings. In spell check at least suggestion replace "expaned" to "expanded" is correct. summary-ended-with-dot also easy to fix. non-executable-script is ok, because it is modules, not executables. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [?] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. There in tarball GPLv3 text included. In files License mentioned only as GPL. So, by logick it should be GPLv3, not GPLv3+. If I understand correctly you are upstream author of that? If yes, you off course can set any approved license. [+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ md5sum sx-2.03.tar.gz sx-2.03.tar.gz_RPM 1dc8870281718ec00208ce8c9ef06f10 sx-2.03.tar.gz 1dc8870281718ec00208ce8c9ef06f10 sx-2.03.tar.gz_RPM [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2428265 [=] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [=] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [=] 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. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [=] 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [-] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. You use of %{__python} macros but plain rm command in spec. Please choose one variant. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [=] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [=] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [=] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [=] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [=] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [=] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [=] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [=] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [=] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [=] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [=] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [=] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. So, all issues are minor. Please fix it and I'll approve package.
Updated to fix all the issues, remove old files and replaced with modified versions. Spec URL: http://sbradley.fedorapeople.org/sx/SRPMS/SPECS/sx.spec SRPM URL: http://sbradley.fedorapeople.org/sx/SRPMS/sx-2.03-7.fc12.src.rpm --sbradley
What about leaved %{__python}? Other is fine. Package APPROVED.
Hey Adam, I see that you were going to take responsibility for sbradley but you're not a sponsor in the packager group. I'm willing to sponsor him if you're willing to be the primary mentor. (I'm available to ask questions of as well if needed.) A mentor basically sees to the development of a packager, helping them to understand the fedora packaging guidelines[1], helping to resolve any difficulties if there's misunderstandings or packaging cleanups that need doing, and helping to explain how to use the buildsystem, package vcs, bodhi, etc. If you're willing to be the primary guy to take care of that I can sponsor sbradley tomorrow. Just let me know (here or in IRC -- abadger1999 in #fedora-admin on freenode) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
I sponsored sbradley after talking to Adam on IRC. I think we're on step #4 here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: sx Short Description: sx is a library that is used by the binary sxconsole. sxconsole is a tool used to extract various report types and then analyze those extracted reports with plugins. Owners: sbradley Branches: f14 el6 InitialCC: astokes
The short description here is a bit long. ;) Any way you could reduce it and make it more clear?
Sure, I think this sounds better anyhow. thanks: New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: sx Short Description: sx is a library that provides the ability to extract and analyze various report types with plugins. Owners: sbradley Branches: f14 el6 InitialCC: astokes
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Shane, what info you request from me??? Package approved, git branches created. Just go and import package into Fedora.
ping?
This bz can be closed caused everything is working correctly. This was old request in comment 11 which you can disreguard and is no longer a valid question.
What is very interesting - I do not see 11 comment! There 10 and then 12! May be it is on some sort private (I can't imagine how meantime)?
We can just close ticket cause everything is resolved or non-issue now.
Ok, then please just close it.
closing bz.