https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171129 --- Comment #9 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== ISSUES ===== Since there were some indications in the specfile that this is intended for EPEL as well, I ran fedora-review with the -D EPEL5 flag. If this was not intended, some comments should be modified. %prep does "rm -f lib/md5.c", but leaves "lib/md5.h" in place. Shouldn't the header file be removed too? The URL: tag points to https://github.com/FreeRADIUS/freeradius-client On this page the first thing that you see is a link to http://freeradius.org/freeradius-client/ which seems to be the upstream project website. Would this link be a better choice for the URL tag? The Source0: tag points to https://github.com/FreeRADIUS/freeradius-client/archive/release_1_1_7.tar.gz The download link of the website points to ftp://ftp.freeradius.org/pub/freeradius/freeradius-client-1.1.7.tar.gz The content of the tarballs is the same, but which of them is the one upstream considers to be their published version? Using the one from ftp.freeradius.org you could avoid the %global filename release_1_1_7 See also the issues marked [!] below. ===== 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. [!]: 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. The license file (COPYRIGHT) is marked "%doc" not "%license". (This is a recent change to the guidelines. 2015-01-15) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Note that for older rpm versions (RHEL 5 and 6) using %license to tag files in the %files section is not supported. When not used as a tag in the %files section %license expands to the value of the License: tag in the specfile. This also happens with older rpm versions in the %files section. For this reason it is not possible to write %{?license: ...} to do conditional things depending on whether %license is supported in the %files section or not. Using %{?_licensedir: ...} works. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios "In addition, the package must contain a comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown. The actual implementation of this ..." [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 There is no need for %defattr even on EPEL5 - RHEL5 has rpm version 4.4.2 [-]: 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. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. $ repoquery -ql radiusclient-ng-utils /usr/sbin/login.radius /usr/sbin/radacct /usr/sbin/radiusclient /usr/sbin/radlogin /usr/sbin/radstatus /usr/share/doc/radiusclient-ng-utils /usr/share/doc/radiusclient-ng-utils/COPYRIGHT Four of these files are also provided by the new radiusclient-utils package. (For the libraries and devel files the existing radiusclient-ng uses a naming containing -ng so there are no conflicts.) Will this package replace existing radiusclient-ng-utils package, or do you need something like alternatives? [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. Will these packages replace or be parallel installable with the existing radiusclient-ng packages? [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [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. [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 40960 bytes in 7 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]: 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. [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. What is the purpose of: BuildRequires: autoconf BuildRequires: libtool BuildRequires: automake The %build section does not rerun autotools [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: EPEL5: Package does 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 [x]: EPEL5 requires explicit %clean with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Explicit BuildRoot: tag as required by EPEL5 present. Note: Missing buildroot (required for EPEL5) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [-]: 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. [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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools This is probably best addressed by forwarding it upstream. See the list below for the obsolete macros found by fedora-review. [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: freeradius-client-1.1.7-1.x86_64.rpm freeradius-client-devel-1.1.7-1.x86_64.rpm freeradius-client-utils-1.1.7-1.x86_64.rpm freeradius-client-1.1.7-1.src.rpm freeradius-client.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The library lets you develop a RADIUS-aware application in less than 50 lines of C code. freeradius-client.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/radiusclient/servers 0600L freeradius-client-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib freeradius-client-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary radembedded freeradius-client-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary radiusclient freeradius-client-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary radexample freeradius-client-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary radacct freeradius-client-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary radlogin freeradius-client-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary radstatus freeradius-client.src: E: description-line-too-long C The library lets you develop a RADIUS-aware application in less than 50 lines of C code. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- freeradius-client-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): freeradius-client(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libfreeradius-client.so.2()(64bit) libnsl.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) freeradius-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig config(freeradius-client) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libnettle.so.4()(64bit) libnsl.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) freeradius-client-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): freeradius-client(x86-64) libfreeradius-client.so.2()(64bit) Provides -------- freeradius-client-utils: freeradius-client-utils freeradius-client-utils(x86-64) freeradius-client: config(freeradius-client) freeradius-client freeradius-client(x86-64) libfreeradius-client.so.2()(64bit) freeradius-client-devel: freeradius-client-devel freeradius-client-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FreeRADIUS/freeradius-client/archive/release_1_1_7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5eb20eb0eb0c194ba2efeedbe00aa40fe3e774615bbb4d5814ba085cd1b26557 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5eb20eb0eb0c194ba2efeedbe00aa40fe3e774615bbb4d5814ba085cd1b26557 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: freeradius-client-release_1_1_7/configure.in:36 AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: freeradius-client-release_1_1_7/configure.in:30 AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: freeradius-client-release_1_1_7/configure.in:349 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -D EPEL5 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1171129 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, 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