[Bug 1027770] Review Request: ocserv - OpenConnect SSL VPN server

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770



--- Comment #42 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues
======

- Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
  The last patch need's a link or justification.


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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:
     "LGPL", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL
     (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 17 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/mk/FedoraReview/1027770-ocserv/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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 174080 bytes in 11 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 %doc.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: 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 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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ocserv-0.2.1-6.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          ocserv-0.2.1-6.fc21.src.rpm
ocserv.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
ocserv.src:38: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(gnulib)
ocserv.src:40: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(bobjenkins-hash)
ocserv.src:40: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(ccan-container_of)
ocserv.src:41: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(ccan-htable)
ocserv.src:41: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(ccan-list)
ocserv.src:42: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(ccan-check_type)
ocserv.src:42: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(ccan-build_assert)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint ocserv
ocserv.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'


Requires
--------
ocserv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    config(ocserv)
    iproute
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypt.so.1()(64bit)
    libgnutls.so.28()(64bit)
    libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_1_4)(64bit)
    libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_2_10)(64bit)
    libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_2_12)(64bit)
    libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_3_0_0)(64bit)
    libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_3_1_0)(64bit)
    libhttp_parser.so.2()(64bit)
    libopts.so.25()(64bit)
    libpam.so.0()(64bit)
    libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit)
    libpcl.so.1()(64bit)
    libutil.so.1()(64bit)
    libwrap.so.0()(64bit)
    pam
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    shadow-utils
    systemd



Provides
--------
ocserv:
    bundled(bobjenkins-hash)
    bundled(ccan-build_assert)
    bundled(ccan-check_type)
    bundled(ccan-container_of)
    bundled(ccan-htable)
    bundled(ccan-list)
    bundled(gnulib)
    config(ocserv)
    ocserv
    ocserv(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/ocserv/ocserv-0.2.1.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
f98a052319cf9fbef09c7733054520779f327cd3730773cd619fcd675cc2234b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
f98a052319cf9fbef09c7733054520779f327cd3730773cd619fcd675cc2234b


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (928f2b2) last change: 2013-10-14
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1027770
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

-- 
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
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]