Spec URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/nfacct.spec SRPM URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/nfacct-1.0.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Nfacct is the command line tool to create/retrieve/delete accounting objects. Fedora Account System Username: hpejakle
hpejakle@sapimaa ~/rpmbuild$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-17-i386/result/nfacct-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. hpejakle@sapimaa ~/rpmbuild$ rpmlint SPECS/nfacct.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Jan, do you want to do a cross review? to accelerate the both packages to get into f18.
ping!
Hi Jia, I see that somebody is already reviewing your package, so if you want to review this one, that will help. Do you have any other package for cross-review?
@Jan, libnetfilter_acct will be available soon also for EPEL5, the package has been approved. It would be nice if you could add the specific stuff to your package. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848990#c8
Ping...?
sorry for longer delay, at this time I aim only for Fedora and not EPEL, so please do not consider missing EPEL specific stuff as blocker for this review, EPEL specific things will be added in future
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4874484 $ rpmlint -i -v * nfacct.src: I: checking nfacct.src: I: checking-url http://www.netfilter.org/projects/nfacct/index.html (timeout 10 seconds) nfacct.src: I: checking-url http://www.netfilter.org/projects/nfacct/files/nfacct-1.0.0.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) nfacct.i686: I: checking nfacct.i686: I: checking-url http://www.netfilter.org/projects/nfacct/index.html (timeout 10 seconds) nfacct.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/nfacct-1.0.0/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. nfacct.x86_64: I: checking nfacct.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.netfilter.org/projects/nfacct/index.html (timeout 10 seconds) nfacct.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/nfacct-1.0.0/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. nfacct-debuginfo.i686: I: checking nfacct-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://www.netfilter.org/projects/nfacct/index.html (timeout 10 seconds) nfacct-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking nfacct-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.netfilter.org/projects/nfacct/index.html (timeout 10 seconds) nfacct.spec: I: checking-url http://www.netfilter.org/projects/nfacct/files/nfacct-1.0.0.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. Don't bother with incorrect FSF addresses, just inform upstream that they can fix it for future releases. Changing a license file is not allowed by the packaging guidelines anyway. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] 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. GPLv2+ [+] 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 sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ sha256sum * eb7e64c3ee4f1e4b5d508e933dc9dc2f91e14ea3ee5f1926aad76c114d1d2014 nfacct-1.0.0.tar.bz2 eb7e64c3ee4f1e4b5d508e933dc9dc2f91e14ea3ee5f1926aad76c114d1d2014 nfacct-1.0.0.tar.bz2.orig [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] 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. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] 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: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: Development files must be 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}%{?_isa} = %{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: 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 builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway). [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [.] 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. [+] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ----------------
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nfacct Short Description: Command line tool to create/retrieve/delete accounting objects Owners: hpejakle Branches: f17 f18 el5 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
will it be ready for fedora 19 ?
is this bug alive ?
(In reply to comment #12) > is this bug alive ? Hi, I had some healt issues so I didn't had time to continue here, it will be finished during a week
Any progress here?
Just a reminder...
i did not forgot, today it was uploaded into git, in the evening or tomorrow it will hit build system & testing repos.
nfacct-1.0.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nfacct-1.0.0-1.fc18
nfacct-1.0.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nfacct-1.0.0-1.fc17
nfacct-1.0.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nfacct-1.0.0-1.fc19
nfacct-1.0.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nfacct-1.0.0-1.el6
nfacct-1.0.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
nfacct-1.0.0-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
nfacct-1.0.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
nfacct-1.0.0-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.