[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662



--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> ---

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils

The -java package should Require jpackage-utils (which owns
/usr/lib/java). See:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java

- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

You currently have a BR for python-devel - this should be
python2-devel.  Also, you might consider building a python3
sub-package if that is supported too - Fedora will eventually move to
python 3 as the default. See:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.

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:
     "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or
     later)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 663 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jgu/rpmbuild/1201662-wiredtiger/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.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses

Need to Require jpackage-utils in the -java package.

/usr/share/licenses is owned by the filsystem package, but I see no
other packages Requiring filesystem, so perhaps this is OK.

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/java,
     /usr/share/licenses

As above.

[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.
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

jpackage-utils

[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

Maven:
[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
     when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python

python2-devel BuildRequires needed as described above. Also, consider
a python3 package.

[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wiredtiger-
     libs , wiredtiger-devel , wiredtiger-python , wiredtiger-java
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: 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]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Java:
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
     Note: wiredtiger subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)

===== 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: wiredtiger-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          wiredtiger-libs-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          wiredtiger-devel-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          wiredtiger-python-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          wiredtiger-java-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          wiredtiger-2.5.1-4.fc20.src.rpm
wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation
wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation
wiredtiger.src:70: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build
--with-python-prefix=%{buildroot}%{python_sitearch} \
wiredtiger.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/releases/download/2.5.1/wiredtiger-2.5.1.tar.bz2
HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
wiredtiger-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    librt.so.1()(64bit)
    libsnappy.so.1()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

wiredtiger-python (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit)
    libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    wiredtiger-libs(x86-64)

wiredtiger (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    librt.so.1()(64bit)
    libsnappy.so.1()(64bit)
    libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    wiredtiger-libs(x86-64)

wiredtiger-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    librt.so.1()(64bit)
    libsnappy.so.1()(64bit)
    libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    wiredtiger-libs(x86-64)

wiredtiger-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit)
    wiredtiger-libs(x86-64)



Provides
--------
wiredtiger-libs:
    libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit)
    wiredtiger-libs
    wiredtiger-libs(x86-64)

wiredtiger-python:
    wiredtiger-python
    wiredtiger-python(x86-64)

wiredtiger:
    wiredtiger
    wiredtiger(x86-64)

wiredtiger-java:
    libwiredtiger_java.so.0()(64bit)
    wiredtiger-java
    wiredtiger-java(x86-64)

wiredtiger-devel:
    pkgconfig(wiredtiger)
    wiredtiger-devel
    wiredtiger-devel(x86-64)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
wiredtiger-python: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/releases/download/2.5.1/wiredtiger-2.5.1.tar.bz2
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
589fbad039b26e37be6eaa449d657f4914f9fdaad8ff2afbe3fde041de4aaeef
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
589fbad039b26e37be6eaa449d657f4914f9fdaad8ff2afbe3fde041de4aaeef


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1201662
Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic, Java, C/C++
Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, 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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]