[Bug 553649] Review Request: rhn-custom-info - Set and list custom values for RHN-enabled machines

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=553649

Garrett Holmstrom <gholms.fedora at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |gholms.fedora at gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms.fedora at gmail.com> 2010-01-16 00:07:00 EST ---
I'm not an approved packager yet, so I'll give you an informal review in hopes
that it will help.

See below for rpmlint output

ok - Package meets naming guidelines
ok - Spec file matches base package name
NO - Meets Packaging Guidelines
ok - License (GPLv2 and Python)
ok - License field in spec matches
ok - License file included in package
ok - Spec in American English
ok - Spec is legible
ok - Sources match upstream md5sum:
7b291f04f68beba0e1b3b4285cee92ce  rhn-custom-info-5.4.1.tar.gz
7b291f04f68beba0e1b3b4285cee92ce  rhn-custom-info-5.4.1.tar.gz.upstream

NO - BuildRequires correct
na - Spec handles locales/find_lang
na - Package has .so files in %{_libdir} and runs ldconfig in %post and %postun
ok - Package does not bundle system libs
na - Package relocatability is justified
ok - No duplicate files in %files
ok - Spec has %defattr in each %files section
NO - File permissions are sane
ok - Spec has a correct %clean section
ok - Spec has rm -rf %{buildroot} at top of %install
ok - Spec has consistant macro usage
ok - Package is code or permissible content
ok - Spec has correct buildroot
ok - File names valid UTF-8

ok - %doc files don't affect runtime
na - Headers go in -devel package
na - Static libs go in -static package
ok - Package contains no .la files
na - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file installed w/
desktop-file-install
ok - Package owns all directories it creates
ok - Package's files and directories don't conflict with others'
ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target

ok - Compiles and builds on at least one arch (builds on f13 and el5)
ok - Compiles and builds on all archs or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed

SHOULD Items:

na - Query upstream for license inclusion
no - Translations of description and summary
ok - Builds in mock
na - Builds on all supported archs (noarch)
na - Scriptlets are sane
na - Non-devel subpackages require base w/ fully-versioned dependency
na - pkgconfig (.pc) files go in -devel package
ok - Latest version
ok - Has dist tag
ok - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin

########################################

* rpmlint output

rhn-custom-info.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency rhnlib

This is justified in the spec file.

* Meets Packaging Guidelines

0%{?fedora} evaluates to 13 in Rawhide, so your condition on line 16 fails,
causing the resulting rpm to Require up2date instead of yum-rhn-plugin.  While
yum-rhn-plugin still Provides it, perhaps you can fix it by changing the "=="
to a ">=" in that condition so we don't have to rely on the Provides entry
sticking around for dependency solving to work.

python-optik died in el4 when Python 2.3 included it, and the Provides entry
for it isn't in Fedora any more.  That makes this package impossible to install
on Rawhide.  If you plan on building it for el3 I would make that Requires
entry contingent on el3 or less.  Otherwise I recommend just dropping it.

* BuildRequires correct

A build that require Python should BuildRequire python-devel instead of python.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires

* File permissions are sane

A couple files have g+w permissions:
-rw-rw-r-- 2 root root 6766 Jan 15 22:41
/usr/share/rhn/custominfo/rhn-custom-info.pyc
-rw-rw-r-- 2 root root 6766 Jan 15 22:41
/usr/share/rhn/custominfo/rhn-custom-info.pyo

* Other comments

What's with the '+' characters in front of the latest changelog entry?

-- 
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.