[Bug 896101] Review Request: inital-setup - The replacement for firstboot utility

Wed Feb 13 07:42:54 UTC 2013

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=896101

Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?(misc at zarb.org)    |

--- Comment #10 from Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> ---
Sorry, totally forgot about this review.

There is a few issues that should be easy to correct, and a few ones
that should be discussed.

Package Review
==============

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

Issues:
=======
- %global debug_package %{nil} should not be needed, can you remove or explain 
why it is needed ?

- rm -rf ${buildroot} is not needed in %install

- License should be be shipped in %doc

- Should not have %dir %{_sysconfdir}/profile.d, since this is already owned by 
setup rpm.

- systemd-sysv chkconfig are not used in %post, should not be required IMHO.

- since the package call directly metacity, it should requires it ( since 
mate-windows-manager also provides 'firstboot(windowmanager)', likely something 
it shouldn't ).

- not sure if xorg-x11-xinit should be explicitely added as Requires,
need to check what pull it ( used by initial-setup-xserver.service )

- Requires: libreport-python 
do not seems to be needed in the code

- As a side note, the initial-setup-xserver.service is never disabled, not
sure if that's what you want.

===== 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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: 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]: 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/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/896101-initial-
     setup/licensecheck.txt
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: 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 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: initial-setup-0.1-2.fc19.noarch.rpm
initial-setup.noarch: W: no-documentation
initial-setup.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/initial-setup/modules/README.txt
initial-setup.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary initial-setup
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint initial-setup
initial-setup.noarch: W: no-documentation
initial-setup.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/initial-setup/modules/README.txt
initial-setup.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary initial-setup
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires
--------
initial-setup (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    anaconda
    chkconfig
    firstboot(windowmanager)
    gtk3
    libreport-python
    python
    python(abi)
    systemd-sysv
    systemd-units

Provides
--------
initial-setup:
    initial-setup

Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (cf29f98) last change: 2013-02-08
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 896101 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DQrheBVWBB&a=cc_unsubscribe