[Bug 1069259] Review Request: ndoutils - Store Nagios configuration and event data in a database

Thu Apr 17 10:29:14 UTC 2014

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069259

--- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> ---
Please have a look at various issues found by fedora-review:

Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues:
=======
- Permissions on files are set properly.
  Note: See rpmlint output
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
- Package do not use a name that already exist
  Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ndoutils
  See:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names

This is a re-review of a formerly retired package.

- No license file seems to be included in the package

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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.

Some of the source files say GPLv2 but no license file included.

[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)",
     "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 61 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/petersen/pkgreview/1069259-ndoutils/licensecheck.txt

See attachment below

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification

[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/nagios/brokers
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/nagios/brokers
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required

EPEL5 branch exists

[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

See above for unowned dirs

[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 624640 bytes in 83 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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

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

Generic:
[-]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.

please add comment above the Patch lines

[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.
[?]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ndoutils-2.0.0-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          ndoutils-2.0.0-2.fc21.src.rpm
ndoutils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/file2sock 0774L
ndoutils.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/ndoutils nagios
ndoutils.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/ndoutils nagios
ndoutils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/sockdebug 0774L
ndoutils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/log2ndo 0774L
ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary log2ndo
ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sockdebug
ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndo2db
ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary file2sock
ndoutils.src: W: strange-permission ndoutils-2.0.0.tar.gz 0444L
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 7 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint ndoutils
ndoutils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/file2sock 0774L
ndoutils.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/ndoutils nagios
ndoutils.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/ndoutils nagios
ndoutils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/sockdebug 0774L
ndoutils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/log2ndo 0774L
ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary log2ndo
ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sockdebug
ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndo2db
ndoutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary file2sock
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires
--------
ndoutils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    config(ndoutils)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.10()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libmysqlclient.so.18()(64bit)
    libmysqlclient.so.18(libmysqlclient_18)(64bit)
    libnsl.so.1()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libssl.so.10()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    nagios
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    systemd

Provides
--------
ndoutils:
    config(ndoutils)
    ndoutils
    ndoutils(x86-64)

Unversioned so-files
--------------------
ndoutils: /usr/lib64/nagios/brokers/ndomod.so

Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/nagios/ndoutils-2.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
b95047c812fb61465e66a9e1a6d4a42bf00620f334f08a6faf5afe20bdd43ba1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
b95047c812fb61465e66a9e1a6d4a42bf00620f334f08a6faf5afe20bdd43ba1

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1069259
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component