https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270 --- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- 0. A general question: wouldn't this be better build as a part of the kernel package? 1. remove %clean 2. remove %defattr 3. Consider using %license for COPYING 4. Consider adding something like (copied from another package): # Use the same directory of the main package for subpackage licence and docs %global _docdir_fmt %{name} This will avoid having a doc/usbip-devel directory with one file (or licenses/usbip-devel directory with one file if you do 3.) 4. Combine the two %systemd_posts into one, it'll reload systemd just once. 5. /etc/default is an abomination. You can incorporate the file into the systemd service file as a comment. If somebody is doing debugging, they can create /run/systemd/system/usbip-server.d/override.conf with updates the options (by the time F22 comes out, systemctl edit usbip-server will do this automatically). 6. Module loading in a service file is very much discouraged. Is is not possible to have the module load automatically? And rmmod in a service file is usually a bad idea because rmmod can interfere with other things. Why is this necessary? 7. Drop After=syslog.target. Looks good. ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1175270-usbip/licensecheck.txt [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. [ ]: 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. [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. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 4 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]: 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]: 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: [ ]: 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. [-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in usbip-devel It should be added for (your) sanity. An automatic requires is generated on the library, but it does not include the specific version, and you do not want to have reports for a mismatching main and devel packages. [ ]: Package functions as described. I didn't test it, but at least the binaries work :) [?]: Latest version is packaged. I guess that the version depeneds on the branch. It should be 3.18 for rawhide. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [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: usbip-3.17-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm usbip-devel-3.17-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm usbip-3.17-1.fc22.src.rpm usbip-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib usbip.src: W: strange-permission extract_usbip.sh 0755L usbip.src: W: invalid-url Source0: usbip-3.17.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- <mock-chroot>[root@bupkis /]# rpmlint usbip-devel usbip usbip-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. <mock-chroot>[root@bupkis /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- usbip-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libusbip.so.0()(64bit) usbip(x86-64) usbip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(usbip) hwdata kmod(usbip-core.ko) kmod(usbip-host.ko) kmod(vhci-hcd.ko) libc.so.6()(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) libusbip.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd Provides -------- usbip-devel: usbip-devel usbip-devel(x86-64) usbip: config(usbip) libusbip.so.0()(64bit) usbip usbip(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1175270 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