https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823122 --- Comment #19 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package has some critical issues. ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Spec-file builds daemon/server app without hardening-features Note: Missing: %global _hardened_build 1 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PIE ---> enable hardened-builds - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in zookeeper-lib, zookeeper-lib-devel, zookeeper-java See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage ---> false positive: * main-pkg requires lib-subpkg * lib-subpkg will work without main-pkg * java-subpkg only provides interface to main-pkg-server and might be installed on other device ---> "real" issue: * lib-devel-subpkg should Requires: %{name}-lib%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java ---> false positive: * BR: jpackage-utils is present in spec * java-subpkg has proper auto-requires - License field in the package spec ---> License: APL 2.0 and BSD - Package consistently uses macros ---> %{name} hardcoded in: * URL: http://zookeeper.apache.org/ * Source3: zookeeper.service * %build * files listed in python-%{name} - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. ---> please move %doc src/c/docs/html/* from libs-devel to libs-doc ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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]: %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. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed ---> please remove [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. ---> see above [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> server app without PIE and full RELRO [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 79 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/823122-zookeeper/licensecheck.txt ---> License is APL 2.0 and BSD [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). ---> %{name} hardcoded in: * URL: http://zookeeper.apache.org/ * Source3: zookeeper.service * %build * files listed in python-%{name} [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. ---> lib-devel, see above [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 819200 bytes in 73 files. ---> please move %doc src/c/docs/html/* from libs-devel to libs-doc [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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). Java: [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct or update to latest guidelines [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Uses parallel make. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). ---> see above [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Java: [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: zookeeper subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. ---> html-docs in lib-devel should be in lib-doc [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: zookeeper-3.4.5-3.fc20.x86_64.rpm zookeeper-lib-3.4.5-3.fc20.x86_64.rpm zookeeper-lib-devel-3.4.5-3.fc20.x86_64.rpm zookeeper-java-3.4.5-3.fc20.noarch.rpm zookeeper-javadoc-3.4.5-3.fc20.noarch.rpm zookeeper.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary load_gen zookeeper.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cli_mt zookeeper.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cli_st zookeeper.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zktreeutil 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint zookeeper-javadoc zookeeper zookeeper-lib zookeeper-lib-d evel zookeeper-java zookeeper.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary load_gen zookeeper.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cli_mt zookeeper.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cli_st zookeeper.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zktreeutil 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- zookeeper-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils zookeeper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblog4cxx.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libzookeeper_mt.so.2()(64bit) libzookeeper_st.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) zookeeper-lib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) zookeeper-lib-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libzookeeper_mt.so.2()(64bit) libzookeeper_st.so.2()(64bit) zookeeper-lib zookeeper-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): checkstyle java jline jpackage-utils jtoaster junit log4j mockito netty slf4j Provides -------- zookeeper-javadoc: zookeeper-javadoc zookeeper: zookeeper zookeeper(x86-64) zookeeper-lib: libzookeeper_mt.so.2()(64bit) libzookeeper_st.so.2()(64bit) zookeeper-lib zookeeper-lib(x86-64) zookeeper-lib-devel: zookeeper-lib-devel zookeeper-lib-devel(x86-64) zookeeper-java: mvn(org.apache.zookeeper:zookeeper) mvn(org.apache.zookeeper:zookeeper-ZooInspector) mvn(org.apache.zookeeper:zookeeper-test) osgi(org.apache.hadoop.zookeeper) zookeeper-java Source checksums ---------------- http://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/stable/zookeeper-3.4.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e92b634e99db0414c6642f6014506cc22eefbea42cc912b57d7d0527fb7db132 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e92b634e99db0414c6642f6014506cc22eefbea42cc912b57d7d0527fb7db132 Built with local dependencies: /home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/rpm/jtoaster-1.0.5-1.fc20.noarch.rpm Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L /home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/rpm/ -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 823122 ##### Please fix and I'll grant review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fNwVg5aaz8&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review