https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147 Paul Wouters <pwouters@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dave@xxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? | |needinfo?(dave@xxxxxxxxxxx) --- Comment #21 from Paul Wouters <pwouters@xxxxxxxxxx> --- This package is APPROVED (my ISP changed v6 config so I needed this package, once started it has been rock solid and never stopped working. Thanks!) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Do please fix the below nit-picks: 1) Please add a comment just above the license field: # The entire source code is BSD except the bison parser code which is GPL 2) fixup compiler flags, eg add %{?_smp_mflags} to the make command 3) remove rm -rf %{buildroot} at start of install 4) Please add the dist tag to the version 5) fix or remove macros from changelog 6) make sure to use the RIGHT spec file as the spec file listed and spec file in the source rpm differ (mostly due to versioned doc dir) ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [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)", "BSD (3 clause) ISC", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /vol/home/paul/956147-wide- dhcpv6/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/wide-dhcpv6 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/wide-dhcpv6 [!]: %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. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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 61440 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]: 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [x]: 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. (clear at the ubuntu upstream page) [-]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== 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). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint wide-dhcpv6 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /vol/home/paul/956147-wide-dhcpv6/srpm/wide-dhcpv6.spec 2015-01-28 10:32:42.330036218 -0500 +++ /vol/home/paul/956147-wide-dhcpv6/srpm-unpacked/wide-dhcpv6.spec 2014-01-13 09:15:53.000000000 -0500 @@ -4,5 +4,5 @@ %global ubuntu_release 11.1 -%global my_release 4 +%global my_release 5 %global _hardened_build 1 @@ -33,4 +33,5 @@ Patch9: wide-dhcpv6-0009-Make-sla-id-config-optional.patch Patch10: wide-dhcpv6-0010-move-client-script-to-after-update_ia.patch +Patch11: wide-dhcpv6-0011-fedora20-cflag.patch Requires(preun): systemd Requires(postun): systemd @@ -60,4 +61,5 @@ %patch9 -p1 %patch10 -p1 +%patch11 -p1 @@ -71,18 +73,18 @@ mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/%{name} mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man{8,5} -mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} +mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} install -p -m 755 dhcp6c dhcp6s dhcp6relay dhcp6ctl %{buildroot}%{_sbindir} install -p -m 644 dhcp6c.8 dhcp6s.8 dhcp6relay.8 dhcp6ctl.8 %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man8 install -p -m 644 dhcp6c.conf.5 dhcp6s.conf.5 %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man5 -install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} -install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE2} %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} -install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE3} %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} -install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE4} %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} -install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE5} %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} -install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE6} %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} -install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE7} %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} -install -p -m 644 README CHANGES %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} -install -p -m 644 dhcp6c.conf.sample %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} -install -p -m 644 dhcp6s.conf.sample %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} +install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} +install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE2} %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} +install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE3} %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} +install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE4} %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} +install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE5} %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} +install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE6} %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} +install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE7} %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} +install -p -m 644 README CHANGES %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} +install -p -m 644 dhcp6c.conf.sample %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} +install -p -m 644 dhcp6s.conf.sample %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} %preun @@ -98,9 +100,13 @@ %files %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name} -%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/* +%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}/* %{_sbindir}/* %{_mandir}/man?/* %changelog +* Tue Jan 14 2014 dave@xxxxxxxxxxx 20080615-11.1.5 +- Added patch 11 provided by Scott Shambarger +- Install docs into %{name} instead of %{name}-%{version} + * Thu May 16 2013 dave@xxxxxxxxxxx 20080615-11.1.4 - Added patches 8 and 9, which simplify configuration Requires -------- wide-dhcpv6 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd Provides -------- wide-dhcpv6: wide-dhcpv6 wide-dhcpv6(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/wide-dhcpv6/wide-dhcpv6-20080615.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 55a66174a1edeabd90029b83cb3fff8e0b63718a556ce95b97d464a87fd1bd81 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 55a66174a1edeabd90029b83cb3fff8e0b63718a556ce95b97d464a87fd1bd81 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 956147 Buildroot used: fedora-19-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