Open Questions - Playground: reviews

[Marcela Mašláňová]

On 03/27/2014 12:58 AM, Tadej Janež wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 17:21 -0400, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>> Do you have more concrete proposal? What should we exactly check?
>
> I would go for things that are easy to check automatically, but will
> nevertheless ensure better packaging quality.
>
> 1) The first set of checks could be automatic single-package checks
> already implemented in FedoraReview. In case of ambiguities, a check
> could require an additional manual review.
> - The spec file name must match the base package %{name} in the format
> %{name}.spec. An exception will require manual review.
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n1346)
> - 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.
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n446,
> https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n1020)
> - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
> packages.
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n155)
> - A package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %
> files listings.
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n521)
> - Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
> with executable permissions, for example.
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n551)
> - There should be no config files under /usr
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n941)
> - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n1428)
> - The SPEC file shouldn't contain "illegal" tags (i.e. Packager, Vendor,
> PreReq, Copyright)
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n590)
> - A package must use either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n837)
> - The %makeinstall macro shouldn't be used.
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n858)
> - A package's name must only use the following ASCII characters ...
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n898)
> - All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
> that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines.
> An exception will require manual review.
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n155)
> - The sources of a package must be accessible (downloadable) from URI in
> Source: tag
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n1764)
> - The gtk-update-icon-cache command should be run if required.
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n1535)
> - The update-desktop-database command should be run if required.
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n1564)
> - Whenever possible, Fedora packages should avoid conflicting with each
> other. An exception will require manual review.
> (https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n974)
>
> 2) The second set of checks could be automatic inter-package checks.
> Again, in case of ambiguities, a check could require an additional
> manual review.
> - Conflicting package names with packages in the main repository or
> existing packages in the Playground repository (even if they differ by
> case alone) are not allowed.
> (partially implemented in
> https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n1475)
> - Conflicting files between different packages, either from the main
> repository or the Playground repository, are not allowed.
>
> Even if we initially implement the Playground repository with a subset
> of the checks, I'd be fine with it.
>
> Tadej
>
> _______________________________________________
> env-and-stacks mailing list
> env-and-stacks at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks
>
1/ fedora-review wasn't written for automatic checks. It was meant to be 
helping reviewers review, output shouldn't be blindly followed.

 From your examples there are many, which fedora-review do incorrectly 
on groups of packages.

2/ Maybe we should vote about the conflicts and write it down as a rule. 
I have a feeling we are discussing it everytime.

I believe too much guidelines make Playground hardly accessible to 
general maintainers. Why not to start with less guidelines and add them 
if there are problems?

Marcela