[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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193712
------- 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:
%{_sbindir}/sosreport
%{python_sitelib}/sos/
%{_mandir}/man1/sosreport.1*
%doc LICENSE README TODO
should work fine.
Review:
? 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
=
/usr/bin/env
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