https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
code(a)musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(ti.eugene(a)gmail.c
| |om)
--- Comment #1 from code(a)musicinmybrain.net ---
Thanks for submitting this. I have listed quite a few issues, but please don’t
give up! They can all be fixed. Let me know if you are having trouble with any
of them.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
=======
[!]: License field is wrong. Use the standard abbreviations from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses.
Apache License 2.0 should be abbreviated ASL 2.0.
[!]: Shared libraries in %files should be listed without globs/wildcards, or
with a more restrictive glob, to reduce the likelihood of missing an
SONAME bump in an update. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_share....
[!]: Is there a reason for tkrzw-libs to provide tkrzw-lib? I suspect this is
copied from the kyotocabinet spec file, where it may have been needed at
one
time, but in my opinion it is just unnecessary noise for a new package.
If it was intentional and there is a concrete reason I am missing, please
let me know.
[!]: Build system injects “-O0” when you pass --enable-debug and/or
--disable-opt to the configure script, which disables optimizations and
certain hardening options. Even without these, the build system overrides
compiler flags that it should not; see
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags.
My testing shows that you can fix this with
tkrzw-0.9.3-do-not-override-build-flags.patch, to be attached. Per
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamSt...,
you would at least need a comment explaining that this patch is specific
to Fedora. I’m not sure it’s suitable for offering upstream as-is,
although it wouldn’t hurt to ask upstream for a way to build without any
unnecessary compiler flag overrides.
(It shouldn’t have been necessary to still add -fPIC in this patch;
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 should have taken care of
it. I am not sure why. Nor am I sure why using -fPIE instead doesn’t
work.)
[!]: You can build in parallel even better with “%make_build apidoc all”
instead of “%make_build” followed by “make apidoc”.
[!}: The HTML docs from doc/ should not be installed in two places; currently
they are in both the -libs subpackage and the -devel subpackage. Plus,
while
they are only about half a MB, that is enough to significantly increase
the size of each of those packages. I think they should be combined with
the API docs in a single documentation subpackage. See the following
issue.
[!]: I don’t think the idiosyncratic -apidocs subpackage name from kyotocabinet
should be maintained here. The guidelines imply that -doc is the proper
name for a documentation subpackage
(
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_separate_docu...),
and existing practice matches. There are only eight -apidocs packages in
Fedora 33, compared to 128 -docs packages and 5259 -doc packages.
Personally, I would rename -apidocs to -doc, add “cp -rp doc html” and
“mv api-doc api” at the end of %build, and then have “%doc html api” in
the %files section for the -doc subpackage.
fedora-review said:
Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 6000640 bytes in 303 files.
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_documentation
[!]: Documentation subpackage should mark COPYING as %license, not %doc.
[!}: The HTML docs from doc/ should not be installed in two places; currently
they are in both the -libs subpackage and the -devel subpackage. Plus,
while
they are only about half a MB, that is enough to significantly increase
the size of each of those packages.
Personally, I would tend to rename the -apidocs subpackage to -doc (there
are only eight -apidocs packages in Fedora 33, compared to 128 -docs
packages and 5259 -doc packages); add “cp -rp doc html” and
do think it is strange to already have a documentation subpackage but
then install some documentation elsewhere.
[!]: You need to run the test suite in %check. The comment says “Koji err: "no
enough memory". This is not a general out-of-memory error, but an attempt
to lock too many pages with mlock. This is mentioned in the HTML
documentation (search for mlock). The limit is controlled by root, so your
only choice is probably to find the offending tests and patch them out.
My testing found that patching out only the four entries with
“--buckets 100000 --lock_mem_buckets” in Makefile.in sufficed. The ones
with “--buckets 10000” or less were fine. See
tkrzw-0.9.3-skip-excessive-mlock-pages-tests.patch, to be attached.
[!]: You should normally run tests with “%make_build check” instead of “make
check” so they can run in parallel. However, in this case, that may cause
unpredictable failures when multiple tests that use mlock run at the same
time. You could still use “%make_build check -j1” to disable
parallelization but benefit from any other default make options.
[!]: You can pass --disable-static to the configure script; then you will not
have to remove the .a file.
[!]: Too-long description line reported by rpmlint. Please wrap “durability”
onto the next line.
[!]: Installed commands should contain man pages if possible. Upstream does not
provide them, but help2man can generate reasonable output here. Something
like:
for bin in \
tkrzw_build_util tkrzw_str_perf tkrzw_file_perf tkrzw_dbm_perf \
tkrzw_dbm_util
do
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD help2man --no-info --no-discard-stderr \
--version-string='%{version}' --output="${bin}.1" \
"./${bin}"
done
in %build, and
install -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1
install -t %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 -m 0644 -p *.1
in %install, plus a corresponding entry in the main package’s %files. Even
better is to clean up the output by hand, if you are comfortable with the
language.
You SHOULD (not MUST) suggest that upstream include them, and offering the
help2man output as a starting point is a nice approach.
[x]: The %ldconfig_scriptlets macro is obsolete in Fedora, but acceptable since
you are targeting EPEL8.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License
2.0",
"FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0".
15
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/tkrzw/1914292-tkrzw/licensecheck.txt
Should be “ASL 2.0”
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
It is installed with the documentation subpackage, which is correct since
that subpackage (correctly) does not require the main package, but you
should mark it %license instead of %doc.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
See the Issues section for details.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
These are also broken by the build system overriding compiler flags.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
(See Issues section)
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
Actually, you do use it, via %make_build, for the main build; this is
catching “make apidoc” below. However, you could “%make_build apidoc all”
to do everything in parallel (with apidoc first since Doxygen takes longer
than most individual compiler invocations), which would be even better.
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tkrzw-
libs , tkrzw-devel , tkrzw-apidocs
tkrzw and tkrzw-devel have correct fully-versioned dependencies on
tkrzw-libs, and tkrzw-apidocs correctly has no such dependency
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Comment says “Koji err: "no enough memory". You should either fix this or
patch out the offending test(s). See Issues section.
You should normally run tests with “%make_build check” instead of “make
check” so they can run in parallel. However, in this case, that may cause
unpredictable failures when multiple tests that use mlock run at the same
time. You could still use “%make_build check -j1” to disable
parallelization but benefit from any other default make options.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1116160 bytes in /usr/share
See the Issues section. This is the contents of doc/, installed in two
different arched subpackages when it should really be part of the
documentation subpackage.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: tkrzw-0.9.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
tkrzw-libs-0.9.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
tkrzw-devel-0.9.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
tkrzw-apidocs-0.9.3-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
tkrzw-debuginfo-0.9.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
tkrzw-debugsource-0.9.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
tkrzw-0.9.3-1.fc34.src.rpm
tkrzw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability ->
availability, sociability, implacability
tkrzw.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It features high degrees of
performance, concurrency, scalability and durability.
tkrzw.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-documentation
tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_build_util
tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_dbm_perf
tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_dbm_util
tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_file_perf
tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_str_perf
tkrzw-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
tkrzw-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
tkrzw-apidocs.noarch: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
tkrzw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
tkrzw-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
tkrzw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability,
sociability, implacability
tkrzw.src: E: description-line-too-long C It features high degrees of
performance, concurrency, scalability and durability.
tkrzw.src: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 15 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: tkrzw-libs-debuginfo-0.9.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
tkrzw-debuginfo-0.9.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
tkrzw-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
tkrzw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
tkrzw-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
tkrzw-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
tkrzw-apidocs.noarch: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
tkrzw-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
tkrzw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
tkrzw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability ->
availability, sociability, implacability
tkrzw.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It features high degrees of
performance, concurrency, scalability and durability.
tkrzw.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-documentation
tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_build_util
tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_dbm_perf
tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_dbm_util
tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_file_perf
tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_str_perf
tkrzw-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://dbmx.net/tkrzw/pkg/tkrzw-0.9.3.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
945b978402425de6f4cb156544ddf34d928b28100ff93d931816eec3b51be9aa
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
945b978402425de6f4cb156544ddf34d928b28100ff93d931816eec3b51be9aa
Requires
--------
tkrzw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
tkrzw-libs(x86-64)
tkrzw-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
tkrzw-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit)
pkgconfig
tkrzw-libs(x86-64)
tkrzw-apidocs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
tkrzw-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
tkrzw-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
tkrzw:
tkrzw
tkrzw(x86-64)
tkrzw-libs:
libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit)
tkrzw-lib
tkrzw-lib(x86-64)
tkrzw-libs
tkrzw-libs(x86-64)
tkrzw-devel:
pkgconfig(tkrzw)
tkrzw-devel
tkrzw-devel(x86-64)
tkrzw-apidocs:
tkrzw-api-doc
tkrzw-apidocs
tkrzw-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
tkrzw-debuginfo
tkrzw-debuginfo(x86-64)
tkrzw-debugsource:
tkrzw-debugsource
tkrzw-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1914292
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Perl, R, fonts, Python, PHP, Haskell,
Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component