https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080143
Bug ID: 1080143 Summary: Review Request: adminer - Web gui for database manipulation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: daniel.wallace@rackspace.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://epel.gtmanfred.com/adminer.spec SRPM URL: http://epel.gtmanfred.com/adminer-4.0.3-1.el6.src.rpm Description: Replacement for phpMyAdmin, with support for other databases Fedora Account System Username: gtmanfred
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080143
Daniel Wallace daniel.wallace@rackspace.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|Package Review |Package Review Version|rawhide |el6 Product|Fedora |Fedora EPEL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080143
ben.harper@rackspace.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ben.harper@rackspace.com
--- Comment #1 from ben.harper@rackspace.com --- I am not a Reviewer, but I wanted to help push this along.
$ rpmlint adminer-4.0.3-1.el6.src.rpm adminer.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C full-featured MySQL management tool written in PHP adminer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US phpMyAdmin -> sysadmin adminer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US php -> pp, hp, pep adminer.src: W: no-%build-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
$ rpmlint adminer-4.0.3-1.el6.x86_64.rpm adminer.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C full-featured MySQL management tool written in PHP adminer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US phpMyAdmin -> sysadmin adminer.x86_64: E: no-binary adminer.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/httpd/conf.d/adminer.conf adminer.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
This application has dual licenses, but only GPLv2 is listed in the spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080143
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Wallace daniel.wallace@rackspace.com --- I have updated the following for everything except no-documentation, because there is no documentation provided upstream for the package.
http://epel.gtmanfred.com/adminer.spec http://epel.gtmanfred.com/adminer-4.0.3-2.el6.src.rpm http://epel.gtmanfred.com/adminer-4.0.3-2.el6.noarch.rpm
Fixed the architecture for no-binary, should have been noarch.
the spelling is correct in the description, and fixed the caplitalization.
I was unable to find anything specifying what no-buildroot-tag was
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080143
--- Comment #3 from ben.harper@rackspace.com --- Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. [-]: 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]: 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. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/adminer [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/adminer [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 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [ ]: 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 does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: 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
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [ ]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: 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. [-]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [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.
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080143
R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |herrold@owlriver.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com --- I get a transient message as to the URL:
adminer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/adminer/adminer-4.0.3.php <urlopen error timed out>
but after a wait and retry, it works
The form is correct per: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
The current version seems to have moved up Download adminer-4.1.0.php (387.9 kB)
rpmlint output is otherwise unremarkable, and as note above the packaging seems conformant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080143
R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com --- accordingly: ACCEPT
Daniel, next step is for you to seek an import https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests
If you wish to move to the later version, I can turn a quick re-check
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080143
--- Comment #6 from R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com --- hi, Daniel
boing through old bugs, I saw that I had not tried a build under CentOS 7
a later rpmlint notes:
# -- rpmlint starts -- rpmlint version 1.5 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva adminer.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name} adminer.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name} adminer.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version} adminer.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name} adminer.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name} adminer.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version} adminer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/adminer/adminer-4.1.0.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found ./holding/adminer.spec:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name} ./holding/adminer.spec:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name} ./holding/adminer.spec:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ./holding/adminer.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name} ./holding/adminer.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name} ./holding/adminer.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ./holding/adminer.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/adminer/adminer-4.1.0.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla