[Bug 1149390] Review Request: dnfdaemon - Dbus daemon for dnf package actions
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Oct 17 01:26:10 UTC 2014
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149390
Denis Fateyev <denis at fateyev.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Denis Fateyev <denis at fateyev.com> ---
Updated review:
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
===== 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]: 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". 13 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 3 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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]: 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
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:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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 (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 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: Mock build failed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
Note: build is fine and install in F21 will be fine, too.
Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.1.41 starting...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Mock Version: 1.1.41
INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.41
Start: lock buildroot
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm
/home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/python3-dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm
/home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/python-dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed:
# ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-20-x86_64/root/',
'--releasever', '20', 'install',
'/home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm',
'/home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/python3-dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm',
'/home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/python-dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm',
'--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts']
Error: Package: dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch (/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch)
Requires: python3-dnf >= 0.6.1
Available: python3-dnf-0.4.8-1.fc20.noarch (fedora)
python3-dnf = 0.4.8-1.fc20
Available: python3-dnf-0.5.4-2.fc20.noarch (updates)
python3-dnf = 0.5.4-2.fc20
You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
-- as said above, we can ignore installation error in F20 environment, since
it's proven to be fine with F21 (but sadly I don't have fedora-review suite in
devel.)
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm
python3-dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm
python-dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm
dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.src.rpm
dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) DBus -> D Bus, DB us, DB-us
dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA
dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dbus -> Bus, D bus,
Dubs
dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA
dnfdaemon.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.baseurl.DnfSystem.conf
python3-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) api -> pi, ape, apt
python3-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA
python3-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi,
ape, apt
python3-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def,
inf, DNA
python3-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) api -> pi, ape, apt
python-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA
python-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi,
ape, apt
python-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def,
inf, DNA
python-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: no-documentation
dnfdaemon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) DBus -> D Bus, DB us, DB-us
dnfdaemon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA
dnfdaemon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dbus -> Bus, D bus, Dubs
dnfdaemon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 19 warnings.
Requires
--------
python-dnfdaemon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
dnfdaemon
pygobject3
python(abi)
dnfdaemon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/python3
policycoreutils-python
polkit
python(abi)
python3-dbus
python3-dnf
python3-gobject
python3-dnfdaemon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
dnfdaemon
python(abi)
python3-gobject
Provides
--------
python-dnfdaemon:
python-dnfdaemon
dnfdaemon:
dnfdaemon
python3-dnfdaemon:
python3-dnfdaemon
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/releases/download/dnfdaemon-0.3.2/dnfdaemon-0.3.2.tar.xz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
e583e27092a780cee4f5743ccaaf057bcaab9e5079909d4604998cd89ed8c8e4
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
e583e27092a780cee4f5743ccaaf057bcaab9e5079909d4604998cd89ed8c8e4
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n
dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc21.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Summary: package APPROVED.
--
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
More information about the package-review
mailing list