[Bug 562470] Review Request: openvas-client - Client component of Open Vulnerability Assessment (OpenVAS) Scanner

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Jun 1 20:38:57 UTC 2010

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


Xavier Bachelot <xavier at bachelot.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |xavier at bachelot.org
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #21 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier at bachelot.org> 2010-06-01 16:38:55 EDT ---
This is the review for Michal's 3.0.0-6.

+ : OK
- : not OK
= : non applicable
? : not tested

+    * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+    * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
+    * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
+    * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
+    * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
-     * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
licensecheck reports a mix of GPLv2 and GPLv2+. Also some files doesn't have a
license header at all.
License tag should be GPLv2 and GPLv2+. Files without a license header should
be fixed upstream, if you feel like asking them.
+    * 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.
+    * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
+    * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
-    * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL.
Replace Source0:
with Source0:
I guess this stupid php downloader will probably cause more trouble in the
future. It might worth not using the %{name}-%{version} macros in the Source to
avoid errors.
+    * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
=    * MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
+    * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines.
=    * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
=    * 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.
+    * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
=    * 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.
+    * 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.
+    * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
+    * 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.
+    * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
+    * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
=    * 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).
+    * 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.
=    * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
=    * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
=    * 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.
=    * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
+    * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
+    * 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.
+    * 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.
+    * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+    * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

=    * 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.
-    * SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
+    * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
?    * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
+    * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
+    * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
=    * SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
=    * 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.
=    * 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.
+    * SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If
it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

Also, it would be nice the missing manual pdf file error could be handled in
some way. Maybe package the compendium and patch openvas-client to use it
instead (although it seems the latest compendium release is outdated anyway).
Definitely not a blocker, though.

Please fix Source0: and License: tags and then the package is APPROVED.
Sorry for the very long delay...

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