[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Feb 5 19:34:01 UTC 2010
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=561470
James Laska <jlaska at redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|jlaska at redhat.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #4 from James Laska <jlaska at redhat.com> 2010-02-05 14:33:56 EST ---
Jason, thanks ... it wasn't obvious to me from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process that a sponsor could only
do the review. I knew I wouldn't be able to complete the review, but I'd like
to provide my review feedback anyway.
According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
= General =
Can the .spec summary be made more specific? Presently, it says "An operating
system integration testing harness". Is that the correct summary for
beakerlib?
= MUST =
* MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
FAIL - I've attached a small spec patch to address several issues, but you will
need to adjust further to address the issues identified below.
> # rpmlint beakerlib-1.0-1.src.rpm
> beakerlib.src:11: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes rhtslib
> beakerlib.src:11: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes beaker-lib
> beakerlib.src:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides rhtslib
> beakerlib.src:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides beaker-lib
Unsure ... may need to get a second opinion on this.
> beakerlib.src:30: E: files-attr-not-set
Corrected in attached patch
> beakerlib.src:31: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/beakerlib/*.sh
I don't think bash source files should live in /usr/lib/beakerlib. According
to the FHS
(http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLIBLIBRARIESFORPROGRAMMINGANDPA)
-
"/usr/lib includes object files, libraries, and internal binaries that are
not
intended to be executed directly by users or shell scripts. [22]
Applications may use a single subdirectory under /usr/lib. If an
application
uses a subdirectory, all architecture-dependent data exclusively used by
the
application must be placed within that subdirectory."
beakerlib does not contain architecture dependent files and does not include
object files, libraries or internal binaries.
I'd recommend moving bash content into a system-wide location such as
/etc/profile.d/
> beakerlib.src:31: E: files-attr-not-set
> beakerlib.src:32: E: files-attr-not-set
> beakerlib.src:33: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/beakerlib/virtualX.sh
Same as above
> beakerlib.src:33: E: files-attr-not-set
> beakerlib.src:34: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/beakerlib/python/rlMemAvg.py*
> beakerlib.src:34: E: files-attr-not-set
> beakerlib.src:35: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/beakerlib/python/rlMemPeak.py*
> beakerlib.src:35: E: files-attr-not-set
> beakerlib.src:36: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/beakerlib/python/journalling.py*
> beakerlib.src:36: E: files-attr-not-set
> beakerlib.src:37: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/beakerlib/python/journal-compare.py*
> beakerlib.src:37: E: files-attr-not-set
Python content should be moved into %{python_sitelib}. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
> beakerlib.src:38: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/beakerlib/perl/deja-summarize
Same, can this content be moved into the system perl directory?
> beakerlib.src:38: E: files-attr-not-set
> beakerlib.src:39: E: files-attr-not-set
> beakerlib.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
You have such a call in the .spec, but it is wrapped around a conditional check
to ensure BUILD_ROOT != '/'. I've updated the .spec in in the attached patch
to address this
> beakerlib.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 3)
Mixed use of tabs and spaces, I've converted to using spaces in the attached
patch.
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 17 errors, 6 warnings.
> # rpmlint beakerlib-1.0-1.noarch.rpm
> beakerlib.noarch: W: self-obsoletion beaker-lib obsoletes beaker-lib
> beakerlib.noarch: W: self-obsoletion rhtslib obsoletes rhtslib
> beakerlib.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
I believe this will be addressed by moving bash, python and perl content into
standard system-wide locations.
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
> # rpmlint beakerlib.spec
> beakerlib.spec:11: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes rhtslib
> beakerlib.spec:11: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes beaker-lib
> beakerlib.spec:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides rhtslib
> beakerlib.spec:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides beaker-lib
> beakerlib.spec:33: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/beakerlib/*.sh
> beakerlib.spec:35: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/beakerlib/virtualX.sh
> beakerlib.spec:36: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/beakerlib/python/rlMemAvg.py*
> beakerlib.spec:37: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/beakerlib/python/rlMemPeak.py*
> beakerlib.spec:38: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/beakerlib/python/journalling.py*
> beakerlib.spec:39: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/beakerlib/python/journal-compare.py*
> beakerlib.spec:40: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/beakerlib/perl/deja-summarize
Addressed earlier
> beakerlib.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 3)
Addressed earlier
> 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 5 warnings.
* MUST: The package must be named according to the
[[Packaging/NamingGuidelines| Package Naming Guidelines]] .
PASS
* MUST: The spec file name must match the base package <code>%{name}</code>, in
the format <code>%{name}.spec</code> unless your package has an exemption. .
PASS
* MUST: The package must meet the [[Packaging/Guidelines| Packaging
Guidelines]] .
PASS
* MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the [[Packaging/LicensingGuidelines| Licensing Guidelines]] .
PASS
* MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
FAIL -
* I can't tell by looking at the code what the license is. You may wish to
include a LICENSE file.
* The Makefile lists '# License: GPL v2 or later', but the package is listed
as GPLv2. if this is the case, you may wish to change the .spec file License:
GPLv2+
* src/staf-rhts/BEAKERLIB.pm shows "Eclipse Public License (EPL) V1.0" which
is not compatible with the GPLv2 (see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses).
* 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 <code>%doc</code>.
No LICENSE file included, so not an issue.
* MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
PASS
* MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
PASS
* MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the
[[Packaging/SourceURL| Source URL Guidelines]] for how to deal with this.
FAIL - Please correct according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
* MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
WARN - while the package builds successfully, it won't build properly once the
%files are adjusted to suitable system-wide locations. The build process will
need to be adjusted.
* MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
<code>ExcludeArch</code>. Each architecture listed in <code>ExcludeArch</code>
MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does
not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a
comment, next to the corresponding <code>ExcludeArch</code> line.
* MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in <code>BuildRequires</code>,
except for any that are listed in the
[[Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2|exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines]] ; inclusion of those as <code>BuildRequires</code> is optional.
Apply common sense.
* MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
<code>%find_lang</code> macro. Using <code>%{_datadir}/locale/*</code> is
strictly forbidden.
N/A
* MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in <code>%post</code> and <code>%postun</code>.
N/A
* MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.<ref
name="no_bundle">[[Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries|Packaging
Guidelines: Duplication of System Libraries]]</ref>
PASS
* MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
N/A
* 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.
FAIL - please see attached patch
* MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
FAIL - please see attached patch
* MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every <code>%files</code> section
must include a <code>%defattr(...)</code> line.
FAIL - please see attached patch
* MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains <code>rm -rf
%{buildroot}</code> ([[Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags|or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT]]).
WARN - noted earlier in rpmlint output
* MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
PASS
* MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
PASS
* MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). <ref
name="docs">[[Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation|Packaging Guidelines:
Package Documentation]]</ref>
N/A
* MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present. <ref
name="docs">[[Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation|Packaging Guidelines:
Package Documentation]]</ref>
N/A
* MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. <ref
name="devel">[[Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages|Packaging Guidelines: Devel
Packages]]</ref>
N/A
* MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. <ref
name="static">[[Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries|Packaging Guidelines:
Packaging Static Libraries]]</ref>
N/A
* MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). <ref
name="pkgconfig">[[Packaging/Guidelines#PkgconfigFiles|Packaging Guidelines:
Pkgconfig Files]]</ref>
N/A
* 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. <ref name="devel">[[Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages|Packaging
Guidelines: Devel Packages]]</ref>
N/A
* MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: <code>Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} </code> <ref
name="requirebase">[[Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage|Packaging
Guidelines: Requiring Base Package]]</ref>
N/A
* MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.<ref
name="static">[[Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries|Packaging Guidelines:
Packaging Static Libraries]]</ref>
N/A
* 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
N/A
* MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the <code>filesystem</code> or
<code>man</code> package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file
or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package
review time.
N/A
* MUST: At the beginning of <code>%install</code>, each package MUST run
<code>rm -rf %{buildroot}</code>
([[Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags|or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT]]).
FAIL - please see attached patch
* MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
PASS
= SHOULD =
* 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.
Pmuller is upstream in this case, I've recommended including a LICENSE file
* SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
N/A
* SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
PASS - tested using a koji scratch build. But additional spec changes will be
needed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1965521
* SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
PASS
* SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
WARN - will wait for packaging to settle down first
* SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
N/A
* SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency. <ref
name="requirebase">[[Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage|Packaging
Guidelines: Requiring Base Package]]</ref>
N/A
* 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. <ref
name="pkgconfig">[[Packaging/Guidelines#PkgconfigFiles|Packaging Guidelines:
Pkgconfig Files]]</ref>
N/A
* 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.
N/A
* SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.<ref
name="manpages">[[Packaging/Guidelines#Man_pages|Packaging Guidelines: Man
Pages]]</ref>
PASS (kudos!)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list