[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Feb 23 00:11:59 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
--- Comment #12 from James Laska <jlaska at redhat.com> 2010-02-22 19:11:56 EST ---
> Spec URL: http://www.afri.cz/files/beakerlib.spec
> SRPM URL: http://www.afri.cz/files/beakerlib-1.0-2.src.rpm
The src.rpm URL does not work, I've instead used
http://afri.fedorapeople.org/beakerlib/beakerlib-1.0-2.fc12.src.rpm
[ FAIL ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
beakerlib.src: W: invalid-url Source0: beakerlib-1.0.tar.gz
beakerlib.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: beakerlib-1.0.tar.gz
I believe you mixed the definitions of URL and Source0. The following
patch resolves the problem accordingly.
--- /tmp/jlaska-rpm/SPECS/beakerlib.spec 2010-02-12 11:00:20.000000000 -0500
+++ beakerlib.spec 2010-02-22 19:07:48.534865389 -0500
@@ -8 +8 @@
-Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
+Source0:
https://fedorahosted.org/%{name}/attachment/wiki/tarballs/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
@@ -10 +10 @@
-URL:
https://fedorahosted.org/beakerlib/attachment/wiki/tarballs/beakerlib-1.0.tar.gz
+URL: https://fedorahosted.org/%{name}
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
beakerlib.spec noted GPLv2, however the following files included in
beakerlib show 'GPLv2 or later':
git_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
py_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
rpmspec_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
upload_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
scm_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
I think beakerlib.spec should note "GPLv2+" or the *.mk files should
be adjusted
[ OK ] 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
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ WARN ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
It's common practice to include two newlines prior to each %section in
the spec file. I'd recommend the same here for readability. Please
see the tool rpmdev-newspec (provided by rpmdevtools) or the spec
template included in vim now.
[ FAIL ] 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 Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
The Source0 line must be a URL to the location of the source upstream.
Something like (note, the URL will depend on the location you post
this, but I'd recommend anchored somewhere from your fedorahosted
project space) ...
Source0:
http://fedorahosted.org/releases/b/e/beakerlib/beakerlib-%{version}.tar.bz2
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for more info
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
koji scratch build -
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2007048
[ N/A ] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch 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 ExcludeArch line
[ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
[ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* 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 %post and %postun.
[ N/A ] 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.
[ OK ] 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.
[ OK ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
must include a %defattr(...) line.
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ N/A ] 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).
[ OK ] 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.
[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
[ 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.
[ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[ N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.
[ 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.
[ OK ] 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 filesystem or man 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.
[ OK ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[ OK ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, should query upstream to include it.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if
available.
[ OK ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
koji scratch build -
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2007048
[ OK ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
See above
[ OK ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
example.
Being used in the AutoQA project
https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2010-February/000217.html
[ N/A ] 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.
[ 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.
[ OK ] 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.
[ OK ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If
it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[34]
/usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-analyze.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-beakerlib.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-infrastructure.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-journal.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-logging.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-performance.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-rpms.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-testing.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-virtualX.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib.1.gz
--
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