https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171129 --- Comment #12 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= Items that were either [x], [-] or [?] in the previous review and whose status did not change have been removed from the list. This time fedora-review was run without the -D EPEL5 flag. The issues from the previous review were mostly addressed. I do however have some remaining questions. See the few remaining items marked [!]. I assume the spec file mismatch was an unintended glitch. The "description-line-too-long" rpmlint error can be easily fixed by adding a line break in the long line. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [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 %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. The PACKAGE-LICENSING file only lists the .c files not the .h files. I think the licenses for the headers are relevant too. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. A) There is an Obsoletes, but no Provides. Is this intentional? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages "If a package supersedes/replaces an existing package without being a compatible enough replacement as defined in above, use only the Obsoletes" Without looking into details, I imagine that the -utils subpackage is compatible enough with the radiusclient-ng-utils and that a Provides would be resonable here. You might know details that invalidates this assumpion though. Anyway, the Obsoletes (and Provides if added) should be versioned Obsoletes: radiusclient-ng-utils < 0.5.6-13 Provides: radiusclient-ng-utils = %{version}-%{release} If using %{version}-%{release} for the Provides doesn't make sense some hardcoded value (greater than the current 0.5.6-12%{?dist}) might be used. See also the "obsolete-not-provided" and "unversioned-explicit-obsoletes" rpmlint warnings below. B) What will happen with the other packages built from the radiusclient-ng source rpm (radiusclient-ng and -devel)? Will the whole package be retired, or only the -utils subpackage dropped? If the whole package will be retired, the corresponding new packages should Obsolete the old packages also for these. A Provides probably shouldn't be addad here though since it is probably not a "compatible enough replacement" since names of header files and libraries are different. If the radiusclient-ng package will remain in Fedora but no longer provide the -utils subpackage there is no need for Obsoletes in the main and -devel subpackages. Have you coordinated the transition with the maintainer of the radiusclient-ng package? [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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). ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). Rpmlint ------- Checking: freeradius-client-1.1.7-2.x86_64.rpm freeradius-client-devel-1.1.7-2.x86_64.rpm freeradius-client-utils-1.1.7-2.x86_64.rpm freeradius-client-1.1.7-2.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-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation freeradius-client-utils.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided radiusclient-ng-utils freeradius-client-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation 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. freeradius-client.src:33: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes radiusclient-ng-utils 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 11 warnings. The description-line-too-long error can be easily fixed by adding a line break. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ellert/1171129-freeradius-client/srpm/freeradius-client.spec 2015-01-27 14:56:58.465677335 +0100 +++ /home/ellert/1171129-freeradius-client/srpm-unpacked/freeradius-client.spec 2015-01-27 13:49:52.000000000 +0100 @@ -2,5 +2,5 @@ Name: freeradius-client Version: 1.1.7 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Release: 2 # For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING License: BSD and MIT @@ -100,6 +100,4 @@ - Cleanup licensing - Link to main upstream web page -- Properly obsolete radiusclient-ng-utils -- Remove dependencies on autotools * Thu Jan 22 2015 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos - 1.1.7-1 Source checksums ---------------- ftp://ftp.freeradius.org/pub/freeradius/freeradius-client-1.1.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : eada2861b8f4928e3ac6b5bbfe11e92cd6cdcacfce40cae1085e77c1b6add0e9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : eada2861b8f4928e3ac6b5bbfe11e92cd6cdcacfce40cae1085e77c1b6add0e9 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -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, 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