Spec URL: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/NFStest/NFStest.spec SRPM URL: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/NFStest/NFStest-1.0.1-0.fc18.src.rpm Description: Provides a set of tools for testing either the NFS client or the NFS server, most of the functionality is focused mainly on testing the client. Fedora Account System Username: steved
Ping... any movement on this?
I will review your package.
Hi Steve, your package is almost ok, please add BuildRequire: python-devel to meet python packaging guidelines. [1] Full review follows. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires ===== 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]: 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 [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lorenzodalrio/workspace/reviews/NFStest/913605-NFStest/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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). Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: NFStest-1.0.1-0.fc19.noarch.rpm NFStest.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/nfstest.test_util.1.gz 181: a newline character is not allowed in an escape name NFStest.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/packet.record.1.gz 50: warning: macro `frame' not defined 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint NFStest NFStest.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/nfstest.test_util.1.gz 181: a newline character is not allowed in an escape name NFStest.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/packet.record.1.gz 50: warning: macro `frame' not defined 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- NFStest (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python nfs-utils python(abi) sudo tcpdump Provides -------- NFStest: NFStest MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.linux-nfs.org/~mora/nfstest/releases/NFStest-1.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4dfa4958d59eff0c7da0d99ad9d4232bcb5c4d5efd0546589735a90c27c03aa8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4dfa4958d59eff0c7da0d99ad9d4232bcb5c4d5efd0546589735a90c27c03aa8 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 913605 Package NEEDSWORK
(In reply to comment #0) > Spec URL: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/NFStest/NFStest.spec Updated: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/NFStest/NFStest.spec > SRPM URL: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/NFStest/NFStest-1.0.1-0.fc18.src.rpm Updated: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/NFStest/NFStest-1.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
Steve, i get a 403 error on downloading new spec and srpm, please can you fix it?
(In reply to comment #5) > Steve, > i get a 403 error on downloading new spec and srpm, please can you fix it? Its an selinux problem.... its happen before... $ ls -lZ drwxr-xr-x. steved steved unconfined_u:object_r:httpd_user_content_t:s0 ./ drwxrwxr-x. steved steved unconfined_u:object_r:httpd_user_content_t:s0 ../ drwxr-xr-x. steved steved unconfined_u:object_r:httpd_user_content_t:s0 1.0.1-0/ -rw-r--r--. steved steved unconfined_u:object_r:user_tmp_t:s0 NFStest-1.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm -rw-r--r--. steved steved unconfined_u:object_r:user_tmp_t:s0 NFStest.spec For you to access them I have to change user_tmp_t to httpd_user_content_t and I forget how to do that... but I'm looking into it.. But for know please grab them from my other people page http://people.redhat.com/steved/NFStest/
(In reply to comment #5) > Steve, > i get a 403 error on downloading new spec and srpm, please can you fix it? You should be good to go on either people pages.
Steve, please correct changelog entry as it is not in the prescribed format. These are the lines in wrong format: > Mon Mar 18 12:25:46 EDT 2013 > - Added required BuildRequires Once you do this, package will be good to go. :) Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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 [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lorenzodalrio/workspace/reviews/NFStest/review- NFStest/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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). Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: NFStest-1.0.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm NFStest.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.1-0 ['1.0.1-1.fc19', '1.0.1-1'] NFStest.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/nfstest.test_util.1.gz 181: a newline character is not allowed in an escape name NFStest.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/packet.record.1.gz 50: warning: macro `frame' not defined 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint NFStest NFStest.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/nfstest.test_util.1.gz 181: a newline character is not allowed in an escape name NFStest.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/packet.record.1.gz 50: warning: macro `frame' not defined 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- NFStest (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python nfs-utils python(abi) sudo tcpdump Provides -------- NFStest: NFStest MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.linux-nfs.org/~mora/nfstest/releases/NFStest-1.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4dfa4958d59eff0c7da0d99ad9d4232bcb5c4d5efd0546589735a90c27c03aa8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4dfa4958d59eff0c7da0d99ad9d4232bcb5c4d5efd0546589735a90c27c03aa8 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n NFStest Package NEEDSWORK
(In reply to comment #8) > Steve, please correct changelog entry as it is not in the prescribed format. > > These are the lines in wrong format: > > > Mon Mar 18 12:25:46 EDT 2013 > > - Added required BuildRequires > Done! Updated: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/NFStest/NFStest.spec
Would you mind to refresh srpm too? :) Thanks!
(In reply to comment #10) > Would you mind to refresh srpm too? :) Thanks! Sorry about that... Updated: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/NFStest/NFStest-1.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #11) > Sorry about that... No problem! Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: 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 [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lorenzodalrio/workspace/reviews/NFStest/review- NFStest/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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). Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: NFStest-1.0.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm NFStest.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/nfstest.test_util.1.gz 181: a newline character is not allowed in an escape name NFStest.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/packet.record.1.gz 50: warning: macro `frame' not defined 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint NFStest NFStest.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/nfstest.test_util.1.gz 181: a newline character is not allowed in an escape name NFStest.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/packet.record.1.gz 50: warning: macro `frame' not defined 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- NFStest (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python nfs-utils python(abi) sudo tcpdump Provides -------- NFStest: NFStest MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.linux-nfs.org/~mora/nfstest/releases/NFStest-1.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4dfa4958d59eff0c7da0d99ad9d4232bcb5c4d5efd0546589735a90c27c03aa8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4dfa4958d59eff0c7da0d99ad9d4232bcb5c4d5efd0546589735a90c27c03aa8 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n NFStest Package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: NFStest Short Description: NFS Testing Suite Owners: steved Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC:
WARNING: "steved" is not a valid FAS account. WARNING: Invalid branch f20 requested
(In reply to comment #14) > WARNING: "steved" is not a valid FAS account. > WARNING: Invalid branch f20 requested Sorry about that....
Git done (by process-git-requests).