Bug 823163 - Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib ...
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Adrien Devresse
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2012-05-19 11:52 EDT by Ricardo Rocha
Modified: 2012-07-12 18:34 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-06-26 17:41:37 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
adev88: fedora‑review+
limburgher: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Ricardo Rocha 2012-05-19 11:52:04 EDT
Spec URL: https://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-contrib-admintools.spec
SRPM URL: https://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-1.src.rpm
Description:
This package provides a set of additional administration tools for the Disk
Pool Manager (DPM) service.

They provide easy to use commands to perform common sysadmin operations.
Comment 1 Ricardo Rocha 2012-05-19 14:45:33 EDT
Koji builds:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4089382 (dist-5E-epel)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4089386 (dist-6E-epel)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4089378 (f17)

Known issues from rpmlint (and pointer to ticket added upstream):
https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/lcgdm/ticket/524

dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-spacetoken-list-files
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-disk-to-dpns
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-usage-by-vouser
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-delreplica
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-dpns-by-replication
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-spacetoken-replicate-hotfiles
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-spacetoken-usage
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-diskfs-to-dpns-chk
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-du
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-list-disk
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-usage-by-vo-user
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-list-hotfiles
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary adler32sum
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-find
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-pfn-to-dpns
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-files-by-vo-user
dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-dpns-to-diskfs-chk
Comment 2 Adrien Devresse 2012-05-31 02:55:39 EDT
I take care of it
Comment 3 Adrien Devresse 2012-05-31 05:06:54 EDT
[OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.

dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-spacetoken-list-files
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-disk-to-dpns
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-usage-by-vouser
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-delreplica
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-dpns-by-replication
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-spacetoken-replicate-hotfiles
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-spacetoken-usage
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-diskfs-to-dpns-chk
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-du
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-list-disk
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-usage-by-vo-user
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-list-hotfiles
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary adler32sum
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-find
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-pfn-to-dpns
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-files-by-vo-user
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-dpns-to-diskfs-chk
dpm-contrib-admintools.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0.tar.gz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings.

		-> minors warnings


[OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[FAIL] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .

	-> Missing %{?_isa} macro on python-dpm and MySQL-python
                   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires

        -> make is not executed properly, compilation is done  by  "make install" in the install section

	-> -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/  is an override of the %cmake macro, this is not recommended.


[OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 
[N/A] 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.
[OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. 
[OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
[OK] 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.
[OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. 
[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. 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. 
[OK] 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.
[OK] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[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: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[OK] 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. 
[OK] 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. 
[OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
[OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. 
[OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. 
[OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
[OK] 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). 
[OK] 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. 
[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: 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. 
[N/A] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} 
[N/A] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[N/A] 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. 
[OK] 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. 
[OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 


[OK] 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. 
[OK] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. 
[OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. 
[OK] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. 
[OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[N/A] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. 
[N/A] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. 
[N/A] 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. 
[OK] 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. 
[FAIL] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.


   -> Create and include man pages if possible
Comment 4 Ricardo Rocha 2012-06-05 08:42:42 EDT
Hi.

Thanks for the review, spec and srpm updated:
https://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-contrib-admintools.spec
https://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-2.src.rpm

Koji builds (success):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4128602 (rawhide)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4128606 (5E)

Details inline below.

> [OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
> build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
> 
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
> dpm-sql-spacetoken-list-files
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-disk-to-dpns
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
> dpns-usage-by-vouser
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-delreplica
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
> dpm-sql-dpns-by-replication
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
> dpm-sql-spacetoken-replicate-hotfiles
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
> dpm-sql-spacetoken-usage
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
> dpm-sql-diskfs-to-dpns-chk
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-du
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-list-disk
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
> dpm-sql-usage-by-vo-user
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
> dpm-sql-list-hotfiles
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary adler32sum
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-find
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-pfn-to-dpns
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
> dpm-sql-files-by-vo-user
> dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
> dpm-sql-dpns-to-diskfs-chk
> dpm-contrib-admintools.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
> dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0.tar.gz
> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings.
> 
> 		-> minors warnings
> 
> 
> [OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
> Guidelines .
> [OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
> format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
> [FAIL] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
> 
> 	-> Missing %{?_isa} macro on python-dpm and MySQL-python
>                   
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires
> 
>         -> make is not executed properly, compilation is done  by  "make
> install" in the install section

Both fixed.

> 	-> -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/  is an override of the %cmake macro, this is
> not recommended.

The build is requiring this, there are many other components following this. If it's ok with you i'll leave it like this for now.

> 
> [OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
> meet the Licensing Guidelines .
> [OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license. 
> [N/A] 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.
> [OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. 
> [OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
> [OK] 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.
> [OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
> on at least one primary architecture. 
> [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. 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. 
> [OK] 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.
> [OK] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
> the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
> [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: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
> [OK] 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. 
> [OK] 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. 
> [OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
> file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
> situations)
> [OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
> set with executable permissions, for example. 
> [OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. 
> [OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
> [OK] 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). 
> [OK] 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. 
> [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: 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. 
> [N/A] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
> base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
> %{version}-%{release} 
> [N/A] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
> be removed in the spec if they are built.
> [N/A] 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. 
> [OK] 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. 
> [OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 
> 
> 
> [OK] 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. 
> [OK] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
> should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if
> available. 
> [OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. 
> [OK] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
> supported architectures. 
> [OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
> described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
> [N/A] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
> vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. 
> [N/A] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
> package using a fully versioned dependency. 
> [N/A] 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. 
> [OK] 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. 
> [FAIL] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
> If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
> 
> 
>    -> Create and include man pages if possible

As mentioned above i've added the request upstream:
https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/lcgdm/ticket/524

and it will come in a later release.

Thanks again,
  Ricardo(In reply to comment #3)
Comment 5 Adrien Devresse 2012-06-08 04:45:06 EDT
>The build is requiring this, there are many other components following this. If >it's ok with you i'll leave it like this for now.

It was more a comment than a rule, and it is not bocking :)


[OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.

dpm-contrib-admintools.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0.tar.gz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


		-> minors warnings


[OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .

[OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 
[N/A] 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.
[OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. 
[OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
[OK] 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.
[OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. 
[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. 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. 
[OK] 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.
[OK] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[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: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[OK] 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. 
[OK] 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. 
[OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
[OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. 
[OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. 
[OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
[OK] 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). 
[OK] 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. 
[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: 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. 
[N/A] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} 
[N/A] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[N/A] 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. 
[OK] 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. 
[OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 


[OK] 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. 
[OK] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. 
[OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. 
[OK] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. 
[OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[N/A] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. 
[N/A] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. 
[N/A] 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. 
[OK] 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. 
[FAIL] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.


   -> will be done in futur

Package accepted, review done
Comment 6 Ricardo Rocha 2012-06-08 06:03:19 EDT
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: dpm-contrib-admintools
Short Description: DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
Owners: rocha
Branches: el5 el6 f17
InitialCC:
Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-06-08 08:43:56 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2012-06-11 13:28:32 EDT
dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-4.el5
Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2012-06-11 13:28:41 EDT
dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-4.el6
Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2012-06-11 13:28:51 EDT
dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-4.fc17
Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2012-06-12 13:05:51 EDT
dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el5
Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2012-06-12 13:06:25 EDT
dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el6
Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2012-06-12 13:06:34 EDT
dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.fc17
Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2012-06-14 20:32:14 EDT
dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2012-06-26 17:41:37 EDT
dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2012-07-12 18:32:54 EDT
dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2012-07-12 18:34:13 EDT
dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.