[Bug 797962] Review Request: procps-ng - System and process monitoring utilities

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Feb 29 17:22:43 UTC 2012


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=797962

--- Comment #2 from Petr Ĺ abata <psabata at redhat.com> 2012-02-29 12:22:41 EST ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated


==== C/C++ ====
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
     present.

==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[?]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint procps-ng-3.3.2-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm

procps-ng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pdwx -> pd
procps-ng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tty -> try, ttys,
atty
procps-ng.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libprocps.so.0.0.0
_exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
procps-ng.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libprocps.so.0.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
procps-ng.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/top.1.gz 131:
warning: macro `Bd' not defined
procps-ng.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/top.1.gz 162:
warning: macro `Ed' not defined
procps-ng.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/ps.1.gz 1876: `\:'
is not allowed in a name
procps-ng.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/ps.1.gz 1876:
warning: macro `URalbert@' not defined (possibly missing space after `UR')
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.


rpmlint procps-ng-debuginfo-3.3.2-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint procps-ng-devel-3.3.2-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint procps-ng-3.3.2-1.fc18.src.rpm

procps-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ps -> PS, pa, pd
procps-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pkill -> pill, kill,
skill
procps-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pgrep -> prep, grep, p
grep
procps-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US snice -> since, nice,
slice
procps-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tload -> toad, load, t
load
procps-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uptime -> up time,
up-time, suppertime
procps-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vmstat -> stat
procps-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pdwx -> pd
procps-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tty -> try, ttys, atty
procps-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pwdx -> PW
procps-ng.src:28: W: unversioned-explicit-provides /sbin/sysctl
procps-ng.src: W: invalid-url Source0: procps-ng-3.3.2.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.


[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[-]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues:
FIX: Correct the base package dependency in your devel subpackage to
%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
FIX: The license of some files is unclear to me, specifically:
 - tload.c (no license, copyright only)
 - uptime.c (no license, no copyright)
 - vmstat.c (no license, copyright only)
 - watch.c (no license, copyright only)
 - w.c (no license, copyright only)
 - ps/stacktrace.c (no license, copyright only)
Additionally, proc/whattime.c is explicitly said to be public domain.
Resolve those with upstream.  You could also mention Public domain and
Copyright only in your License tag, I suppose -- that would leave just uptime.c
to deal with.  I also suggest consulting the Fedora legal list.
NOTE: Since the base package will always be installed, you don't have to
package all the docs again in the devel subpackage.
TODO: Resolve the rpmlint warnings, if possible.
NOTE: There seems to be testsuite.  Could it be utilized?
NOTE: Is there a reason to exclude libprocps.pc?

Not approving yet.

Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git
External plugins:

-- 
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