[Bug 226209] Merge Review: nut

Wed Feb 23 14:12:05 UTC 2011

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=226209

--- Comment #4 from Vitezslav Crhonek <vcrhonek at redhat.com> 2011-02-23 09:12:01 EST ---

OK      source files match upstream:

$ sha256sum nut-2.6.0.tar.gz*
febaa230b6b5f0ad27d780851047527d36c8c7a34e557b3832d6d55174d7a0d5 
nut-2.6.0.tar.gz
febaa230b6b5f0ad27d780851047527d36c8c7a34e557b3832d6d55174d7a0d5 
nut-2.6.0.tar.gz.orig

OK      package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK      specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.

The spec file look fine, just two comments:

- Please use %global instead of %define, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define

- Buildroot tag is no longer required, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag

OK      dist tag is present.
BAD     license field matches the actual license.

Only GPLv2+ is in the spec file, but the nut-client subpackage holds GPLv3+
files also. I think nut-client should have own license field with dual
licensing scenario, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines

BAD     license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.

License texts are not included, but are not included in upstream tarball too
(although both are mentioned in COPYING - LICENSE-GPL2, LICENSE.GPL3). It would
be nice to point upstream to ship them.

OK      latest version is being packaged.
OK      BuildRequires are proper.
OK      compiler flags are appropriate.
OK      package builds in mock (Rawhide/i686).
OK      debuginfo package looks complete.
BAD     rpmlint is silent.

$ rpmlint nut.spec 
nut.spec:177: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
nut.spec:177: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir}
nut.spec:195: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
nut.spec:320: E: files-attr-not-set
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

Warnings are OK, error on line 320 can be easily fixed by moving %doc COPYING
line after %defattr(-,root,root) line.

$ rpmlint nut-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
nut.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/nut-2.6.0/docs/website/css/ie-overrides.css
nut.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/nut-2.6.0/docs/nut-qa.txt
nut.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/nut.conf 0640L
nut.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upsd.users 0640L
nut.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/nut-2.6.0/docs/website/scripts/filter_png.js
nut.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/ups.conf 0640L
nut.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upsd.conf 0640L
nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blazer_usb
nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary upslog
nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary newmge-shut
nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary skel
nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clone-outlet
nut.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blazer_ser
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 9 warnings.

Some manual pages missing (please check it, probably minor utilities, where man
page is not needed), some non-readable files for everybody (if it's expected,
it should be possible to add these files to the exception list), some files
with CRLF line terminators (should be fixed).

$ rpmlint nut-client-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
nut-client.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libupsclient.so.1.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
nut-client.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upssched.conf 0640L
nut-client.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/ups 0750L
nut-client.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upsmon.conf 0640L
nut-client.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/PyNUT.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
nut-client.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary upssched-cmd
nut-client.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nut-monitor
nut-client.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post install
nut-client.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
nut-client.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name ups ('nut-client',
'nut-clientd')
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 6 warnings.

Same as above, plus directory and script permission - please take a look if
it's correct (directory permission is probably desired - this permission is set
in the spec file, I'm not sure about python script).

$ rpmlint nut-cgi-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
nut-cgi.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ups/upsset.conf 0600L
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint nut-hal-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint nut-devel-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
nut-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on nut/nut-libs/libnut
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint nut-xml-2.6.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
nut-xml.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netxml -> netball,
nettle, nether
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Almost OK:)

OK      final provides and requires look sane.
N/A     %check is present and all tests pass.
OK      shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths with
proper scriptlets
OK      owns the directories it creates.
OK      doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK      no duplicates in %files.
OK      file permissions are appropriate.

Except rpmlint warning.

OK      correct scriptlets present.
OK      code, not content.
OK      documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.

There's quite a lot of documentation, maybe it's worth of subpackage? What do
you think?

OK      %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK      headers in -devel
OK      pkgconfig files in -devel
OK      no libtool .la droppings.
OK      not a GUI app.
OK      obsoletes and provides of the obsoleted package are valid

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.