https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209974 Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Hello Daniel, I'm not in position to sponsor your package but I made a review about it. Hopefully it will be useful for someone considering sponsorship. Also, I reviewed only this Qt-GUI part, not the devel package from ticket 1209971 as I feel as not being USB-guru but this simple Qt app I do understand. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Notes: - While there is LICENSE file in the tarball, there is no indication in source files that LICENSE applies to each of those files. Don't know if this is requirement but it would be nice at least. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html has copy-paste examples. - LICENSE-file mentioned in previous note is not included in resulting binary rpm. Adding a line %license LICENSE into section %files should do the trick. - CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS may be in conflict, depending on build configuration - % install section begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Invalid use of buildroot - I'd love to see documentation of some kind. While the application itself is very simple, a manpage would not hurt. - Obviously the icon is also covered by LICENSE? - Wishlist item: in sources usage of tr("..") macro for strings would make it much easier for me to spawn linguist-qt4 and post a finnish language translation to author. + plus side: programs seems to do what is promised. .. or making claims about "security" is always a bit dangerous, but it seems to do what the website claims as functionality. ===== 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. [!]: 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: "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/review-1209974/1209974-usbguard-applet- qt/licensecheck.txt [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. I'm not sure. The hardening-flags LDFLAGS="-pie -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-z,now" are spelled out in spec ; and only for LDFLAGS: For those hardening flags to make sense, some CXXFLAGS/CFLAGS might be in order, like --stack-proctector-something so it seems to me that one part of hardening flags is hard-coded here and the other part (CFLAGS) usually, depending on configuration, comes in via RPM_OPT_FLAGS but you can't know what RPM_OPT_FLAGS will be. So I'd advice on depending on LDFLAGS supplied by rpmbuild? About the -fPIE/fpie in sparc I don't know, if really necessary then that should remain. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. It has GUI - should count as GUI app? [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. Note: there is no documentation [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. [-]: 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]: 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. [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 [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. % install section begins with rm -rf $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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [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]: Package functions as described. Starts, yes. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. Note: Tried only amd64. In RPM there is discussion about sparc builds so obviously packager has tried other hw platforms too. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: there seems to be no test-suite in sources [x]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: usbguard-applet-qt-0.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm usbguard-applet-qt-0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm usbguard-applet-qt.x86_64: W: no-documentation usbguard-applet-qt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary usbguard-applet-qt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- usbguard-applet-qt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libqb.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libusbguard.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) usbguard Provides -------- usbguard-applet-qt: usbguard-applet-qt usbguard-applet-qt(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://dkopecek.github.io/usbguard/dist/usbguard-applet-qt-0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e8c8cc551b3375f4dffbe2679fa8d13b24abb1e228ec7290e3ce0957020af12b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e8c8cc551b3375f4dffbe2679fa8d13b24abb1e228ec7290e3ce0957020af12b Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-review -o --no-cleanup-after --no-clean -b 1209974 Buildroot used: fedora-21-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