[Bug 569833] Review Request: drupal6 - An open-source content-management platform

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Jun 20 02:31:24 UTC 2010

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


David Nalley <david at gnsa.us> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |david at gnsa.us
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |david at gnsa.us
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #4 from David Nalley <david at gnsa.us> 2010-06-19 22:31:18 EDT ---
Not saying this is wrong, but why is the drupal-files-migrator.sh included as a

Also - any thought on moving .htaccess functionality to the .conf files already
included? There's also a problem with that .htaccess file, a closing quote is
missing on line 22. 

FIX: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
[ke4qqq at nalleyx60 SPECS]$ rpmlint drupal6.spec 
drupal6.spec:52: W: macro-in-comment %{_localstatedir}
drupal6.spec:52: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
drupal6.spec:52: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
drupal6.spec:52: W: macro-in-comment %{drupaldir}
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
[ke4qqq at nalleyx60 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/drupal6-6.16-1.fc13.src.rpm 
drupal6.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weblogs -> we blogs,
we-blogs, web logs
drupal6.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Drupal -> Drupelet, Drupe,
drupal6.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US skinnable -> winnable,
scannable, skinniness
drupal6.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{_localstatedir}
drupal6.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
drupal6.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
drupal6.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{drupaldir}
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
[ke4qqq at nalleyx60 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/drupal6-6.16-1.fc13.noarch.rpm 
drupal6.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weblogs -> we blogs,
we-blogs, web logs
drupal6.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Drupal -> Drupelet,
Drupe, Druidical
drupal6.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US skinnable -> winnable,
scannable, skinniness
drupal6.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile
drupal6.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/drupal6/files/default 0775L
drupal6.noarch: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.hourly/drupal6
drupal6.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/drupal6 0775L
drupal6.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/drupal6/files 0775L
drupal6.noarch: E: htaccess-file /usr/share/drupal6/.htaccess
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 4 warnings

Why is the .htaccess file marked as a conf file?? Generally .htaccess stuff is
frowned on in favor of using the .conf files. Not a blocker, but just for your
The spelling errors are false positivies. 
Macro in comment can be silenced by removing the commented out symlink line in
%install. Doesn't bother me terribly though.   

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .

Seems ok per

OK: 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
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .

Source says only GPL 
There is a license file that contains the content of LGPLv2
I think that makes it GPL+

FIX: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
Source code only says GPL - which when reading the GPL+ entry here:
Seems to indicate that GPLv2+ is an incorrect entry. 

OK: 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: The spec file must be written in American English. 
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: 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.

[ke4qqq at nalleyx60 SOURCES]$ md5sum drupal-6.16.tar.gz*
bb27c1f90680b86df2c535b2d52e8021  drupal-6.16.tar.gz
bb27c1f90680b86df2c535b2d52e8021  drupal-6.16.tar.gz.1

OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
NA: 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: 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.
NA: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
NA: 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. 
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.

Note jquery is bundled, but it is a javascript library, which based on my
understanding since no packaging guidelines for javascript exist at the moment,
this is permissible. However, going forward this may change. 

NA: 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
OK: 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
FIX: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. 
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/drupal6/.htaccess

OK: 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: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
NA: 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: 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. 
NA: Header files must be in a -devel package. 
NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
NA: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability). 
NA: 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
NA: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 
NA: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
NA: 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: 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: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

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