[Bug 751564] Review Request: The Aeolus Audrey Startup Agent

Thu Nov 10 21:34:55 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=751564

--- Comment #27 from Jim Meyering <meyering at redhat.com> 2011-11-10 16:34:54 EST ---
Joe, with this, I think I am done:

  $ rpmlint aeolus-audrey-agent-0.4.0-9.fc15.src.rpm
  aeolus-audrey-agent.src: W: invalid-license ASL2.0
  aeolus-audrey-agent.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
aeolus-audrey-agent-0.4.0.tar.gz

Please fix #2: replace "ASL2" by "ASL 2.0"

The first warning would be well enough addressed by the comments if you had
created/pushed a gpg-signed git tag and if the instructions said to use that.

    # to build source tarball
    # git clone git at github.com:aeolusproject/audrey.git
    # make dist

However, without that, the above clone instructions are not
enough to reproduce your source RPM, which is the goal, after all.
Once you've fixed these things, just put the tarball in
 http://joev.fedorapeople.org/audrey-agent/ and use its URL
in the Source0: directive.

Now for the .rpm:

  $ rpmlint
/h/j/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/aeolus-audrey-agent-0.4.0-9.fc16.noarch.rpm
  aeolus-audrey-agent.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-httplib2
  aeolus-audrey-agent.noarch: W: invalid-license ASL2.0
  aeolus-audrey-agent.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/audrey
0555L
  1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings

Run rpmlint with the -i option and it'll give you more details.
You can address the non-standard-executable-perm error by using
"install" instead of "cp".  It will do what rpmlint wants: i.e.,
permissions of 0755, not 0555.

As I understand it, the python-httplib2 error is unwarranted
and thus ignorable.

Address the above and you'll have my approval.
Two "MUST" items are marked "NO" below because of the above.

=========================================================
>From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines

ok  MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
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}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
ok  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 .
    MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
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.[4]
ok  MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
ok  MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]

NO (upstream source URL not specified)
__  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.

ok  MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
NA  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. [8]
ok  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.
ok  MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
NA  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. [10]
ok  MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
NA  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. [12]
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. [13]
ok  MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
NO(0555 vs 0755, does this really matter?  maybe for consistency)
__  MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. [15]
ok  MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
ok  MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
ok  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). [18]
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. [18]
NA  MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
NA  MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
NA  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. [19]
NA  MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
NA  MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
NA  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.
[22]
NA  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. [23]
NA  MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]

SHOULD Items:
Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but
is not required to do.

ok  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.
[25]
NO (there are no translations)  SHOULD: The description and summary sections in
the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English
languages, if available. [26]
ok  SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27]
NA  SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures. [28]
NO (I haven't done this)  SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package
functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
example.
NA  SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29]
NA  SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. [21]
NA  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. [30]
NA  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. [31]
ok  SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32]

-- 
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.