https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097426 --- Comment #8 from John W. Linville <linville@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Not too bad, but a few issues identified... Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /tmp/1097426-dpdk/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL Packaging is based on pre-release of 1.7.0. There actually is no snapshot at the specified URL. The automated download just gets a 404-style HTML page. - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: dpdk. Illegal package name: dpdk. Does not provide -static: dpdk. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries Needs something like the following in dpdk.spec: %package devel Provides: dpdk-static = %{version}-%{release} - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3328000 bytes in 286 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation Move /usr/share/doc/dpdk-1.7.0/* to dpdk-doc-1.7.0 package? - Comment above "License:" clause of dpdk.spec looks a bit garbled. Please note that the kni bits (not packaged) seem to be covered by GPL. ===== 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]: 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]: 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. Tarball contains LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.LGPL, but they do not apply to any packaged files. [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) GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "BSD (3 clause) LGPL (v2.1)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2)". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1097426-dpdk/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. This one is N/A. [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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. This one is N/A. [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. This one is N/A. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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. Have you pinged the 6wind guys about this? [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Missing Provides for dpdk-static as noted above. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Need a comment for dpdk-1.7.0-igb_uio_disable.patch [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. This one is N/A. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. No support from upstream. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define destdir %{buildroot}%{_prefix}, %define datadir %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}, %define docdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} [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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ===== 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 3665920 bytes in /usr/share Consider making a -doc package that is noarch? [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: dpdk-1.7.0-0.3.20140603git5ebbb1728.fc21.x86_64.rpm dpdk-devel-1.7.0-0.3.20140603git5ebbb1728.fc21.x86_64.rpm dpdk-1.7.0-0.3.20140603git5ebbb1728.fc21.src.rpm dpdk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US testpmd -> tested dpdk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pktgen -> pkt gen, pkt-gen, Roentgen dpdk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rumptcpip -> scrumptious dpdk.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.7-0.1.gitb20539d68 ['1.7.0-0.3.20140603git5ebbb1728.fc21', '1.7.0-0.3.20140603git5ebbb1728'] dpdk.x86_64: W: no-documentation dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/libethdev.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_cmdline.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_pmd_pcap.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_mempool.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_ring.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_mbuf.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_pmd_vmxnet3_uio.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_hash.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_power.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_pmd_ring.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_malloc.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_sched.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_meter.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_eal.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_pmd_virtio_uio.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_lpm.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_kvargs.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_timer.a dpdk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary testpmd-1.7.0 dpdk-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US makefiles -> make files, make-files, filmmakers dpdk-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/dpdk-1.7.0/exec-env/rte_kni_common.h dpdk-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/dpdk-1.7.0/rte_timer.h dpdk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US testpmd -> tested dpdk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pktgen -> pkt gen, pkt-gen, Roentgen dpdk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rumptcpip -> scrumptious dpdk.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %{datadir} dpdk.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %{target} 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 32 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint dpdk-devel dpdk dpdk-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US makefiles -> make files, make-files, filmmakers dpdk-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/dpdk-1.7.0/exec-env/rte_kni_common.h dpdk-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/dpdk-1.7.0/rte_timer.h dpdk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US testpmd -> tested dpdk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pktgen -> pkt gen, pkt-gen, Roentgen dpdk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rumptcpip -> scrumptious dpdk.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.7-0.1.gitb20539d68 ['1.7.0-0.3.20140603git5ebbb1728.fc21', '1.7.0-0.3.20140603git5ebbb1728'] dpdk.x86_64: W: no-documentation dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/libethdev.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_cmdline.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_pmd_pcap.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_mempool.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_ring.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_mbuf.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_pmd_vmxnet3_uio.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_hash.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_power.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_pmd_ring.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_malloc.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_sched.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_meter.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_eal.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_pmd_virtio_uio.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_lpm.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_kvargs.a dpdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/dpdk-1.7.0/librte_timer.a dpdk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary testpmd-1.7.0 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 27 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- dpdk-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dpdk(x86-64) dpdk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /usr/bin/python libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- dpdk-devel: dpdk-devel dpdk-devel(x86-64) dpdk: dpdk dpdk(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/snapshot/dpdk-1.7.0-0.3.20140603git5ebbb1728.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cc8ee925adff04ef2f70488f945743764f3a7a9fb23948d2f6327c9852a79bbc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 27e3fd3902d8025b06a3224883d5fd105dbad5325e2481d9ac27e26482efcbbe diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1097426 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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