Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: abootimg - tool for manipulating Android boot images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
Summary: Review Request: abootimg - tool for manipulating Android boot images Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: yaneti@declera.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/abootimg/abootimg.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/abootimg/abootimg-0.6-1.20110830gitff8e759.fc17.s... Description: abootimg is used to manipulate block devices or files with the special partition format defined by the Android Open Source Porject.
abootimg.src: W: invalid-url Source0: abootimg-0.6-20110830gitff8e759.tar.gz
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
Laurence.Field@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |Laurence.Field@cern.ch
--- Comment #1 from Laurence.Field@cern.ch 2011-11-16 09:32:53 EST --- +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items: [-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
rpmlint is not silent:
abootimg.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Porject -> Project abootimg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Porject -> Project
Spelling mistake in the specfile
abootimg.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Unspecified abootimg.src: W: non-standard-group Unspecified
Need to specify a Group in the specfile
abootimg.src:37: E: files-attr-not-set abootimg.src:38: E: files-attr-not-set abootimg.src:39: E: files-attr-not-set
The default file attribute should be set.
abootimg.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
No cleaning of build root in the %install section
abootimg.src: W: no-%clean-section abootimg.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
No clean section.
abootimg.src: W: no-buildroot-tag abootimg.src: W: invalid-url Source0: abootimg-0.6-20110830gitff8e759.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 10 warnings.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - Could not general the source from the specified commands [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example - and %defattr not required anymore [-] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - Missing [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [-] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - Missing and submission suggests that RHEL 5 is targeted [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [+] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. The library could be succesfully imported. abootimg -h returns the usage and the man page can read [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [+] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [+] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
--- Comment #2 from Laurence.Field@cern.ch 2011-11-16 09:35:57 EST --- I should mention that the previous review was only an informal review as part of my sponsorship process.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
--- Comment #3 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com 2011-11-16 12:11:21 EST --- Thanks for the review.
abootimg.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Porject -> Project abootimg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Porject -> Project Spelling mistake in the specfile
Fixed.
Need to specify a Group in the specfile
Not necessary. Group tag is basically deprecated from around F10.. Granted the guidelines simply do not mention it.
abootimg.src:37: E: files-attr-not-set abootimg.src:38: E: files-attr-not-set abootimg.src:39: E: files-attr-not-set The default file attribute should be set.
Not necessary unless some file has explicitly wrong ones. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
abootimg.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install No cleaning of build root in the %install section
Not necessary. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
abootimg.src: W: no-%clean-section abootimg.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean No clean section.
Not necessary. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
[-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
- Could not general the source from the specified commands
The instructions certainly work for me. I'll need more details on what actually failed for you.
[-] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- Missing
See the %clean guidelines mentioned above.
[-] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- Missing and submission suggests that RHEL 5 is targeted
I am not sure what makes you think the submission targets RHEL5
0.6-2.20110830gitff8e759 - Fixed a typo pointed by the first review.
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/abootimg/abootimg.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/abootimg/abootimg-0.6-2.20110830gitff8e759.fc17.s...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
--- Comment #4 from Laurence.Field@cern.ch 2011-11-17 03:50:17 EST --- I tried the instructions again and it worked. I must have made a mistake when constructing the command. Is there a way to automatically generate it or do I have to copy and paste the variables?
If the three warnings reported by rpmlint (File Permissions, %clean and BuildRoot tag) are no longer required, do you know why rpmlint reports this?.
It seems that many of the checks above could be automated, any idea why a specific Fedora test is not available?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |steve.traylen@cern.ch AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |steve.traylen@cern.ch Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-11-22 16:30:15 EST --- Laurence,
Is there a way to automatically generate it or do I have to copy and paste the variables?
this will not help in this case but when the Source is a URL with versions in you can at least run.
spectool package.spec
to give the URL.
Yanko,
The informal review is a good review as are your following comments.
One change, can you preserve the timestamp on the man page, i.e add -p on
install -D -m 644 debian/abootimg.1 ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_mandir}/man1/abootimg.1
before import.
Assuming that's okay with you.
APPROVED.
Steve
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
--- Comment #6 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com 2011-11-22 19:58:41 EST --- Thanks. The flag is still "?" tho
0.6-3.20110830gitff8e759 - Preserve man page timestamp on install.
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/abootimg/abootimg.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/abootimg/abootimg-0.6-3.20110830gitff8e759.fc17.s...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com 2011-11-23 03:22:15 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: abootimg Short Description: Tool for manipulating Android boot images Owners: yaneti Branches: f16 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-11-23 05:54:27 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-23 06:36:08 EST --- abootimg-0.6-3.20110830gitff8e759.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/abootimg-0.6-3.20110830gitff8e759.fc...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
--- Comment #10 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com 2011-11-23 06:41:59 EST --- Built for f16 and rawhide. F16 Update pushed to bodhi. Comaintainers, new owner, new branches with new owner.. all welcome. Thanks again.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-23 18:33:30 EST --- abootimg-0.6-3.20110830gitff8e759.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |abootimg-0.6-3.20110830gitf | |f8e759.fc16 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-12-03 21:25:18
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-12-03 21:25:18 EST --- abootimg-0.6-3.20110830gitff8e759.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
Jiri Kastner jkastner@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jkastner@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #13 from Jiri Kastner jkastner@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: abootimg Short Description: Tool for manipulating Android boot images Owners: yaneti Branches: el6 epel7 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734410
Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |
--- Comment #14 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com ---
Owners: yaneti Branches: el6 epel7
You are confused. I am not going to maintain epel branches for this. Feel free to maintain them yourself or find somebody else willing. And use the pkgdb interface for this.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla