[Bug 491088] Review Request: rhncfg - Red Hat Network Configuration Client Libraries

Tue Nov 17 21:10:34 UTC 2009

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=491088

Sandro Mathys <sm at sandro-mathys.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #4 from Sandro Mathys <sm at sandro-mathys.ch>  2009-11-17 16:10:33 EDT ---
NEEDSWORK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted in the review.

$ rpmlint {SPECS,RPMS/noarch,SRPMS}/rhncfg*
rhncfg.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libselinux-python
rhncfg.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency rhnlib
rhncfg.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency rhnlib
10 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings.

rhnlib seems to be a special case and you can ignore those warning, but please
remove libselinux-python.

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. .
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.
NEEDSWORK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license.

License should be "GPLv2 and Python" (e.g. compile.py is based on
Python-licensed code) - asked spot about this to be sure.

NEEDSWORK -  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.

PYTHON-LICENSES.txt should be added to %doc

OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK - 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.

$ md5sum rhncfg-5.9.13.tar.gz SOURCES/rhncfg-5.9.13.tar.gz
71374b0b5a61b32affc762079d1b688b  rhncfg-5.9.13.tar.gz
71374b0b5a61b32affc762079d1b688b  SOURCES/rhncfg-5.9.13.tar.gz

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.
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.
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.
OK - MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
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.
NEEDSWORK - 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.

%{rhnroot} (i.e. %{_datadir}/rhn) is used in every package but rhn-client-tools
is only required in rhncfg-actions. This require should be moved up to the main
package.
%{rhnconf} (i.e. %_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/rhn) is used in the client and
management subpackages which is to be found in rhn-client-tools as well.

OK - MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
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}
N/A - 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.
OK - 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.
N/A - 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.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
N/A - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
OK - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - 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.
N/A - 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.

Some more remarks from my side:
- IMHO you shouldn't repeat the summary in the description. And the 'A' or
'The' at the beginning of the description can be removed as well as it doesn't
matter whether it's one-of-many or the-only-one package doing something (and
this might change in future anyway). Both are no blocker, tho.
- I wasn't sure if the 'Provides:' in the spec file are sane so I asked some
more experienced guys (thm and rsc from #fedora-de) about them. Fact is that
provides only make sense if the provided package is obsoleted in the same
package which isn't the case here. Therefore please remove all provides from
the spec file unless you have a proper explanation for them. As a side note:
even if the provides were sane, no two packages (i.e. base and subpackage)
should ever feature the same provides.

Fix those tiny bits and we should be ready to get this into Fedora :)

-- 
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.