[Bug 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Aug 25 18:20:50 UTC 2012
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> ---
So, here's what fedora-review says:
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ====
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
==== Generic ====
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[ ]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"zlib/libpng" For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/kevin/847901-spamprobe/licensecheck.txt
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[ ]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5
[ ]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[ ]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Patch0 (compile-fixes.patch) Patch1 (64bit.patch) Patch2 (example-
swapped.patch)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
See: None
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: spamprobe-1.4d-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm
spamprobe-1.4d-2.fc16.src.rpm
spamprobe-debuginfo-1.4d-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm
spamprobe.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US procmail -> proclaim,
procaine
spamprobe.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Procmail -> Proclaim,
Procaine
spamprobe.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/spamprobe.1.gz
610: normal or special character expected (got a node)
spamprobe.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US procmail -> proclaim,
procaine
spamprobe.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Procmail -> Proclaim,
Procaine
spamprobe.src: W: strange-permission spamprobe-1.4d.tar.gz 0775L
spamprobe.src:62: W: macro-in-%changelog %makeinstall
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint spamprobe-debuginfo
spamprobe-debuginfo.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
spamprobe-1.4d-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdb-4.8.so()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
spamprobe-debuginfo-1.4d-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
spamprobe-1.4d-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
spamprobe = 1.4d-2.fc16
spamprobe(x86-64) = 1.4d-2.fc16
spamprobe-debuginfo-1.4d-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
spamprobe-debuginfo = 1.4d-2.fc16
spamprobe-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.4d-2.fc16
MD5-sum check
-------------
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/spamprobe/spamprobe-1.4d.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
217ce47dcc6f58d8201fbb0a5e2dc38b5b06349fadb1378fb3647ad8a3f44d68
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
217ce47dcc6f58d8201fbb0a5e2dc38b5b06349fadb1378fb3647ad8a3f44d68
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 847901
External plugins:
So, the items I would say should be fixed (although none of them are serious):
1. spamprobe.src:62: W: macro-in-%changelog %makeinstall
In rpm spec files you have to use %% to produce a non macro %
2. [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded
directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
Fix those and I think we are in pretty good shape. ;)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list