[Bug 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055

Andrea Veri <andrea.veri at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-



--- Comment #9 from Andrea Veri <andrea.veri at gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- The doc/ directory is > than 1M in size, please consider moving it to its own
sub-package.
- The licenses breakdown should be more detailed, please provide a
PACKAGE-LICENSING
   file containing a list of files (you can ideally use directories and
wildcards if you prefer making
   sure that specific dir has no files licensed under a different license than
the one you are listing)
   and their respective license.
- The package ships with 5 LICENSE files but none is showing under %license,
ideally we'd want them
   renamed to something like LICENSE.$LICENSE_NAME on %license given we're
targeting EPEL 7. (which
   should not need any patch for the new %license field to work properly as per
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411)
- As Orion pointed out /var/www/mediawiki123 contains a mw-config dir and
within it another
  mw-config dir in the form of a symlink.
- File includes/libs/jsminplus.php seems to be triple licensed (MPL 1.1/GPL
2.0/LGPL 2.1) but no mention of it
  appears under License.
- Latest release is not installed, the chosen release seems to be a LTS which
makes sense for our target. This
  comment is purely informative.

===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[X]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 (we're targeting EPEL 7
which ships with rpm 4.11.1)
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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.
[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

Perl:
[X]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires: "use
{strict,warnings,Data::Dumper,Cwd"
       were found and they do match the provided Requires.

Python:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: 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
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

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

Generic:
[X]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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.
[!]: Latest version is packaged. The release we are packaging is a LTS which
makes sense
      for the target we have in mind.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: 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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

===== RESOLUTION =====

Please correct all the items marked as *issues* and provide a new spec file.
Resolution: Package NOT 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