[Bug 193712] Review Request: sos

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jul 4 20:44:29 UTC 2007

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: sos


------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-07-04 16:44 EST -------
Odd; this package has grown rpmlint issues since I looked at it last.  I'm not
sure how you would not be seeing any errors.  Maybe you neglected to run it
against both the SRPM and the built RPM.

W: sos redundant-prefix-tag
  Please remove Prefix:.
  While you're at it, remove Vendor: as well.

E: sos no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
  Somehow "rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}" was removed from the %install section of 
  the previous submission.  It needs to come back.

In fact, it looks like someone junked the almost-complete existing spec and
started over with some new spec having , so I need to do a complete re-review. 
That's really disappointing; I've spent a lot if time on this already.

The instructions for fetching the source must be included in the spec.  The
instructions that you've given in comment #23 don't work for me; I'm prompted
for a password and I don't know what to enter.

The summary seems to be mostly content-free; it needs to include at least a
little information about what the package does.  Maybe "System information
gethering tools" or somesuch.

The dist tag seems to have disappeared.  It's not mandatory, but if not present
I have to ask: are you sure you don't want it?  Do you understand the
requirements of multi-branch maintenance without the dist tag?

Because you've switched to using the ill-advices --record option to setup.py,
you're now not including any of the directories that you should be including.
If you put the %python_sitelib definition back in the beginning of the spec
(which you simply must do in any case, unless you want some complicated hack
that parses the INSTALLED_FILES file to figure out where the directories are),
then a %files section consisting simply of:
should work fine.

? can't compare source files against upstream.
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X summary is nondescriptive.
* description is OK.
? dist tag is not present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
X rpmlint has valid complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   sos = 1.6-3
   python(abi) = 2.5
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I tested it before and 
   I'll make the assumption that it still works OK.
X does not own most of the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

More information about the package-review mailing list