https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955394
Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(zheng.ma(a)intel.co
| |m)
--- Comment #21 from Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> ---
I was hoping to be able to approve this revision, but I think there are still a
couple of things that need to be revisited.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== Issues =====
- There are some issues around interdependencies among subpackages and license
files related to the new -libs subpackage.
* The base package is right, I think. Normally, in a library-and-tool
package, the base package should depend on the -libs package with an arched
and fully-versioned dependency, because the command-line tool would use the
shared library at runtime.
In this case, the library is statically linked into the tool, which is OK
across subpackages in a single source RPM. So since there is no implicit
dependency, it’s correct that the base package doesn’t have an explicit
dependency on -libs, and that it has the LICENSE files.
* The -libs subpackage is correct too (no Requires on other subpackages), but
it needs
%license LICENSE*
added to its %files section too, since it can be installed independently of
the base package. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel....
* The -devel package correctly has
Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
and correctly does not have its own copy of the LICENSE file (since the
-libs dependency will always provide a copy). However, I think
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
is bogus and should be removed, unless I’m missing some reason that the
command-line tool and its man page should be required for compiling
applications that link against the library.
- ExcludeArch is basically correctly handled.
Instead of “Placeholder comment,” you should really have something similar to
what you would put in the Bugzilla report. Something like “The purpose of the
package is to support hardware that only exists on x86_64 platforms” would be
fine.
Would
ExcludeArch: %{arm} aarch64 %{power64} s390x i686
be more accurately written as an ExclusiveArch?
ExclusiveArch: x86_64
(You would still handle it the same way as the ExcludeArch in terms of filing
an issue for unsupported architectures.)
- The latest changelog entry’s version, 1.0.4-1, does not match the package
version 1.0.5-1.
- The PDF documentation does not belong in /usr/share/man. That is only for
actual man pages. Please put it in %{_pkgdocdir} instead.
Since the existing configure/Makefile always installs the man pages and PDF
documentation in the same place, you will have to clean up after it. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation for
different methods of installing documentation.
One reasonable approach would be to add
rm -vf %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/*.pdf
after “%make_install”, and then change
%doc %{_mandir}/QATzip-man.pdf
to
%doc docs/QATzip-man.pdf
in “%files devel”. That will install it as
/usr/share/doc/qatzip-devel/QATzip-man.pdf.
===== Notes (no change required) =====
- You could, if you liked, write
URL:
https://github.com/intel/%{githubname}
Source0:
https://github.com/intel/%{githubname}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{vers...
more concisely as
URL:
https://github.com/intel/%{githubname}
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
===== 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License",
"Unknown or
generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD
3-clause
"New" or "Revised" License GNU General Public License, Version
2". 4
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/reviewer/1955394-qatzip/licensecheck.txt
GPLv2 license applies only to config_file/, which does not contribute to
the build and is intentionally not installed.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Possible to install qatzip-libs alone with no license file.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
Version does not match
[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.
[!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
PDF documentation installed in /usr/share/man.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Unless I am missing something, the -devel package should not require the
base package, which contains only the command-line tool and its man page.
[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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
ExcludeArch is basically correctly handled. (Instead of “Placeholder
comment,” you should really have something similar to what you would put
in the Bugzilla report.)
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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).
(except already-mentioned dependency of -devel on base package)
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in qatzip-
libs
[?]: 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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Package has ExcludeArch
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
A comment properly explains why tests cannot be run.
[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]: 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: qatzip-1.0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
qatzip-libs-1.0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
qatzip-devel-1.0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
qatzip-debuginfo-1.0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
qatzip-debugsource-1.0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
qatzip-1.0.5-1.fc35.src.rpm
qatzip.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C QATzip
qatzip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip
qatzip.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.4-1 ['1.0.5-1.fc35',
'1.0.5-1']
qatzip-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
qatzip-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libqatzip -> libation
qatzip.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C QATzip
qatzip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip
qatzip.src:53: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: qatzip-libs-debuginfo-1.0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
qatzip-debuginfo-1.0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/intel/QATzip/archive/v1.0.5/qatzip-1.0.5.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
32c4aeac5541fcb6be2940172e5ab0738babf0f768fe808b7ec20c6651423c8b
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
32c4aeac5541fcb6be2940172e5ab0738babf0f768fe808b7ec20c6651423c8b
Requires
--------
qatzip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
glibc
ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libqat.so.0()(64bit)
libusdm.so.0()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
qatzip-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
glibc
ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libqat.so.0()(64bit)
libusdm.so.0()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
qatzip-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
qatzip(x86-64)
qatzip-libs(x86-64)
qatzip-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
qatzip-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
qatzip:
qatzip
qatzip(x86-64)
qatzip-libs:
libqatzip.so.1()(64bit)
qatzip-libs
qatzip-libs(x86-64)
qatzip-devel:
qatzip-devel
qatzip-devel(x86-64)
qatzip-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
qatzip-debuginfo
qatzip-debuginfo(x86-64)
qatzip-debugsource:
qatzip-debugsource
qatzip-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1955394
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Ruby, R, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, Haskell, fonts, PHP,
Ocaml, Java
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