[Bug 751820] Review Request: pius - A tool for signing and emailing all UIDs on a set of PGP keys.

Tue Nov 8 18:12:51 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=751820

--- Comment #3 from Ricardo Rocha <rocha.porto at gmail.com> 2011-11-08 13:12:50 EST ---
Sorry about that, the issue is that i tried in a RHEL5 machine.

This is an informal review, for the purpose of my sponshorship, tracked here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749132

General comments:

1) I would put the actual name in the url, not using the %{name} tag (easier to
copy paste)

2) Package should probably be noarch, see below for more

3) Why do you package the spec file in the binary rpm?

4) It would be nice to get man pages.

5) And a wish, consider adding any tests to %check if you have them (not a must
of course).

 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing

MUST Items:
[-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.

rpmlint is not silent:
W: summary-ended-with-dot C A tool for signing and email all UIDs on a set of
PGP keys.
- should be an obvious fix

W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keysigning -> key signing, key-signing,
designing
- key-signing?

E: no-binary
- stuff in %{_bindir} are python and perl scripts, should it be noarch?

W: no-manual-page-for-binary pius-keyring-mgr
W: no-manual-page-for-binary pius-party-worksheet
W: no-manual-page-for-binary pius
- please consider adding man pages for all commands
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Man_pages

E: empty-debuginfo-package
- debuginfo rpm is empty, same as above, package should probably be noarch

# rpmlint -I empty-debuginfo-package
empty-debuginfo-package:
This debuginfo package contains no files.  This is often a sign of binaries
being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, rpmbuild not being
able to strip the binaries, the package actually being a noarch one but
erratically packaged as arch dependent, or something else.  Verify what the
case is, and if there's no way to produce useful debuginfo out of it, disable
creation of the debuginfo package.

3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [FIXME?: covers this
list and more]
[+] 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
license.
[+] 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.
# md5sum pius-2.0.9.tar.bz2*
6ea4b2eabf50f2d40aabe21a22c46bc4  pius-2.0.9.tar.bz2
6ea4b2eabf50f2d40aabe21a22c46bc4  pius-2.0.9.tar.bz2_srcrpm

[=] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
- it builds fine, but see above regarding noarch

[+] 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.
[-] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
- i don't think you need python-devel in the BuildRequires (just python in
Requires)

[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package 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: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
[+] 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 package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example
- and %defattr not required anymore
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- not required for >= F13
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[+] 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} =
%{version}-%{release} 
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- not required anymore
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
[+] 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.
- noarch? see above

[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
- tried simple execution and it seems to work
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[+] 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: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps

-- 
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.