https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2013077
Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(orion(a)nwra.com)
--- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== Issues =====
- The intended overall license is indeed BSD, but src/util/qsort.c is “BSD with
advertising”, which is stricter.
Since this file is only used to work around weird old bugs in weird old
Solaris versions, it’s probably better and easier to patch out the
implementation in %prep rather than trying to account for it in the License
field.
You *could* remove the .h and .c files and patch them out of the Makefile, or
patch them out of Makefile.am and do an autoreconf. Or, to keep things
simpler, just replace them with minimal valid contents and do nothing else:
# Remove “BSD with advertising” licensed qsort implementation, which was
only
# needed to work around ancient Solaris bugs. The typedef keeps the
translation
# unit from being empty.
echo '' > src/util/qsort.h
echo 'typedef int x;' > src/util/qsort.c
- You should have an explicit
BuildRequires: make
rather than relying on indirect dependencies.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot
- The library should be split out into a -libs subpackage separate from the
command-line tools. The base package and -devel subpackage can then depend on
the -libs subpackage.
This satisfies the recommendation for mixed-use packages in
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_mixed_use_pac...
and also apparently helps with correct multilib filtering; see discussion
involving Neal Gompa in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955394.
===== Notes – no change required =====
- The command-line tools pcc and prterun lack man pages. These are desired but
not mandatory. Since other tools in the package do have man pages, perhaps
upstream could be convinced to add them.
- An even nicer way to write
find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' | xargs rm -f
is
find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -delete
- You could, if you liked, write
https://github.com/openpmix/%{name}/releases/download/v%{version}/prte-%{...
as
%{url}/releases/download/v%{version}/prte-%{version}.tar.bz2
===== 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", "[generated file]", "FSF
Unlimited
License (with Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License
[generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
[generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later",
"MIT
License [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU
General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0
or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "*No
copyright*
[generated file]", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (4 clause)",
"BSD (2
clause)". 859 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2013077-prrte/licensecheck.txt
One source file is “BSD with advertising”. See suggestions in Issues,
above.
All other non-BSD licenses belong to build system files and are correctly
not considered in the License of the binary RPMs.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
(except as noted)
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[-]: 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]: Package functions as described.
(based on tests passing)
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: prrte-2.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
prrte-devel-2.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
prrte-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
prrte-debugsource-2.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
prrte-2.0.0-1.fc36.src.rpm
prrte.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openpmix -> opening
prrte.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcc
prrte.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary prterun
prrte-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
prrte.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openpmix -> opening
prrte.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prte -> rte, prate, pert
prrte.src: W: strange-permission prrte.spec 660
prrte.src: W: strange-permission prte-2.0.0.tar.bz2 660
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: prrte-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/openpmix/prrte/releases/download/v2.0.0/prte-2.0.0.tar... :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
9f4abc0b1410e0fa74ed7b00cfea496aa06172e12433c6f2864d11b534becc25
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
9f4abc0b1410e0fa74ed7b00cfea496aa06172e12433c6f2864d11b534becc25
Requires
--------
prrte (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config(prrte)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libevent_core-2.1.so.7()(64bit)
libevent_pthreads-2.1.so.7()(64bit)
libhwloc.so.15()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpmix.so.2()(64bit)
libprrte.so.2()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
prrte-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libprrte.so.2()(64bit)
prrte(x86-64)
prrte-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
prrte-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
prrte:
config(prrte)
libprrte.so.2()(64bit)
prrte
prrte(x86-64)
prrte-devel:
prrte-devel
prrte-devel(x86-64)
prrte-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
libprrte.so.2.0.0-2.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
prrte-debuginfo
prrte-debuginfo(x86-64)
prrte-debugsource:
prrte-debugsource
prrte-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2013077
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Python, fonts, R,
Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2013077