[Bug 675050] Review Request: cloudfs - Cloud Filesystem
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jul 7 23:22:55 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=675050
David Nalley <david at gnsa.us> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |david at gnsa.us
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #14 from David Nalley <david at gnsa.us> 2011-07-07 19:22:50 EDT ---
Kkeithley: Here's the review, there are a number of problems here, but nothing
to painful to fix.
In the meantime, can you do some unofficial reviews, I'll send an email with
some suggestions, but you are by no means bound to those. That will give you
some good experience with the packaging process that a single package won't
achieve.
Thanks for your patience with me on this.
[ ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
[ke4qqq at nalleyx200 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./cloudfs.spec
../SRPMS/cloudfs-0.7-1.fc15.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/cloudfs-
cloudfs-0.7-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
cloudfs-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
[ke4qqq at nalleyx200 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./cloudfs.spec
../SRPMS/cloudfs-0.7-1.fc15.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/cloudfs-*
./cloudfs.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://cloudfs.org/dist/0.7/cloudfs-0.7.tgz <urlopen error timed out>
cloudfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system,
file-system, systemically
cloudfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
cloudfs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file
system, file-system, systemically
cloudfs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
cloudfs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/run/cloudfs/.idle_ports
cloudfs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/run/cloudfs/.idle_ports
cloudfs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/run/cloudfs/.used_ports
cloudfs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/run/cloudfs/.used_ports
cloudfs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/glusterfs/3.2.1/xlator/features/libmaprbtree.so
cloudfs.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/cloudfs
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_stop_volume.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_add_directory.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_add_volume.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_list_vols.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_add_tenant.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_rm_volume.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_mount.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_start_volume.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_delete_tenant.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_add_node.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_enable_tenant.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfs_list_tenants.py
cloudfs.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/cloudfsd $prog
cloudfs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/cloudfs-0.7/uidmap/rb.h
cloudfs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/cloudfs-0.7/uidmap/rbmap.c
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 24 warnings.
These obvious contain lots of non-blockers (such as lack of a man page) and
some false positives. However, please try and make rpmlint shut up as much as
possible.
[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} [...]
[TBD ] 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
[FIX ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
So source contains at least GPLv2 and AGPLV3+, so the license tag is incorrect.
Take a look at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
You may also want to consider whether your GPLv2 source can be used with
AGPLv3+ source as they are not compatible.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
[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.
[OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[FIX ] 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.
So either the sourceurl is broken - or it's the wrong sourceurl.
[OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[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
[FIX ] 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.
You don't need a BR for gcc or make see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
[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.
[FIX] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
warning: File listed twice: /var/run/cloudfs/.idle_ports
warning: File listed twice: /var/run/cloudfs/.used_ports
[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}
[OK ] 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.
[N/A ] 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.
--
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