https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244353 --- Comment #21 from Marcin Haba <marcin.haba@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello Rashad, I prepared informal review for your proposed package. Results are below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: [!]: 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 %license. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 1843 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gani/1244353-ossim/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/ossim, /usr/lib64/ossim-apps [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/ossim-apps, /usr/lib64/cmake/ossim, /usr/lib64/cmake [ ]: %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. [-]: 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. [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. [ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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: [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ossim- doc , ossim-data [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. [!]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define sname OSSIM [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: ossim-1.8.18-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm ossim-devel-1.8.18-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm ossim-apps-1.8.18-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm ossim-doc-1.8.18-2.fc21.noarch.rpm ossim-data-1.8.18-2.fc21.noarch.rpm ossim-1.8.18-2.fc21.src.rpm ossim.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US geospatial -> spatial ossim.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libossim.so.1.8.18 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ossim.x86_64: W: no-documentation ossim-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ossim-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ossim-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/ossim/vpfutil/values.h ossim-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kwl -> kw, kl, awl ossim-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csv -> cs, cs v, CST ossim-data.noarch: W: no-documentation ossim.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US geospatial -> spatial 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ossim-debuginfo-1.8.18-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/include/ossim/support_data/ossimNitfDataExtensionSegmentV2_1.h ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/src/ossim/base/ossimAdjSolutionAttributes.cpp ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/include/ossim/base/ossimBinaryDataProperty.h ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/include/ossim/support_data/ossimNitfImageDataMaskV2_1.h ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/src/ossim/support_data/ossimNitfDataExtensionSegmentV2_1.cpp ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/include/ossim/base/ossimGeodeticEvaluator.h ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/include/ossim/base/ossimAdjSolutionAttributes.h ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/src/ossim/support_data/ossimNitfImageDataMaskV2_1.cpp ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/src/ossim/base/ossimBinaryDataProperty.cpp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/include/ossim/support_data/ossimNitfDataExtensionSegmentV2_1.h ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/src/ossim/base/ossimAdjSolutionAttributes.cpp ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/include/ossim/base/ossimBinaryDataProperty.h ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/include/ossim/support_data/ossimNitfImageDataMaskV2_1.h ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/src/ossim/support_data/ossimNitfDataExtensionSegmentV2_1.cpp ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/include/ossim/base/ossimGeodeticEvaluator.h ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/include/ossim/base/ossimAdjSolutionAttributes.h ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/src/ossim/support_data/ossimNitfImageDataMaskV2_1.cpp ossim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/ossim-1.8.18/ossim/src/ossim/base/ossimBinaryDataProperty.cpp ossim.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US geospatial -> spatial ossim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libossim.so.1.8.18 /lib64/libgeos_c.so.1 ossim.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libossim.so.1.8.18 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ossim.x86_64: W: no-documentation ossim-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ossim-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ossim-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/ossim/vpfutil/values.h ossim-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kwl -> kw, kl, awl ossim-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csv -> cs, cs v, CST ossim-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 18 warnings. My notes ----------- 1) [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. I marked this point as fail because from that what I noticed OSSIM basis on GeoTrans application code. I found Terms of use this GeoTrans code here: http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/geotrans/docs/MSP_GeoTrans_Terms_of_Use.pdf I have not found GeoTrans License in allowed licenses in Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses If you have some additional information about this 'terms of use', please write here. If you want or you have some doubts for it, you can also send e-mail to fedora-legal mailing list here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal 2) [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 1843 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gani/1244353-ossim/licensecheck.txt I marked it as failed due to GeoTrans license is not mentioned in Spec. 3) [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. This point I marked as fail because I noticed that License file is installed only when is installed ossim-doc subpackage. I think that you can move license file to main ossim package and mark all subpackages by "Require: ossim" tag. 4) [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. I have not marked this point because I am not familar with compiler flags. So, better is leave empty to verify, than make a mistake. 5) [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines I have not marked this point because I am not able to determine if packages compiles to the Packaging Guidelines. I am still learning these guidelines. 6) [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ossim- doc , ossim-data If you add "Requires: ossim" to subpackages, then this point should be OK. 7) [!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. I have not found in Fedora scriptlets %_fixperms that you used in spec. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets 8) [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. I have no possibility to check compilation on all supported architectures. Also, you did not define which architectures are they. I guess that all supported. 9) [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define sname OSSIM Probably better in this point is use %global. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define 10) Programs used in /usr/bin/ossim-* do not work. All they are scripts that have defined the same content, for example: cat /usr/bin/ossim-btoa #!/bin/bash export OSSIM_PREFS_FILE=/usr/share/ossim/ossim_preferences $ cat /usr/bin/ossim-orthoigen #!/bin/bash export OSSIM_PREFS_FILE=/usr/share/ossim/ossim_preferences ...etc. Valid programs are placed in invalid place (/usr/lib64) here: /usr/lib64/ossim-apps/ossim-* 11) In build.log I found this lines: cpio: ossim-1.8.18/build/src/ossim/lex.ossimEquTokenizer.cc: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: ossim-1.8.18/build/src/ossim/ossimEquTokenizer.l: Cannot stat: No such file or directory 12) Please look on Michael's comments. They are useful too. 13) Thanks for your info about rpmlint warnings. In my opinion this point needs a little work either. Summary ========== @Rashad, thank you for your effort in preparing ossim package. From my point of view points 2-13) are possible to do by work on preparing ossim to Fedora. Point 1) can require write on fedora-legal mailing list and maybe contact with GeoTrans institution. Anyway, reliable info about it you can take from fedora-legal. Thanks for review process. -- 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