[Bug 1005320] Review Request: openstack-puppet-modules - Puppet modules used to install OpenStack

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005320



--- Comment #9 from Pádraig Brady <pbrady at redhat.com> ---
looks good to me

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[X]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[X]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[X]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/puppet,
     /usr/share/puppet/modules
[X]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
     Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[X]: 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 consistently uses macros (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.
[X]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[X]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Perl:
[ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
     Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo
     $version)) missing?

Python:
[X]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[X]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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).
[X]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: openstack-puppet-modules-2013.2-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
          openstack-puppet-modules-2013.2-3.fc19.src.rpm
openstack-puppet-modules.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
openstack-puppet-modules (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/bash
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/perl
    perl(File::Spec)
    perl(Getopt::Long)
    perl(diagnostics)
    perl(strict)
    perl(warnings)


Provides
--------
openstack-puppet-modules:
    openstack-puppet-modules


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.