https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209166 --- Comment #8 from Michael John Arnold <myk321@xxxxxxxxx> --- Issues List =========== 0. Link provided from un-versioned .so to versioned .so: I believe this is ok. 1. License inconsistencies where the software claims to be GPL v2 licensed but URL in LICENSE file points to GPL v3 license. Issue reported upstream. 2. Software provided by upsteam in a set of folders rather than in .tgz. .tgz provided by packager. URL points to folders where source code is available. 3. cmake used so no %check section in .spec 4. No man file: documentation not in public domain; request made upstream to re-license some documentation. 5. Numerous undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings from rpmlint: not sure how to address these. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: 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. COMMENT: /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so is a link to libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4 [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2)) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/myk/1209166-palo/licensecheck.txt COMMENT: license inconsistency reported upstream here: http://forum.jedox.com/index.php/Thread/4602-Packaging-Palo-Server-for-Fedora/?postID=18974#post18974 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/systemd [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: 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 10240 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/palo/code/molap/server/5.1/palo-5.1.tgz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags COMMENT: .tgz not available from upstream, but expected by packaging guidelines. Upstream provides source in a set of folders. .tgz is provided by packager. URL minus filename is the link to the upstream source code. [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. [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. [x]: 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. COMMENT: cmake used not make. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== 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: palo-5.1-4.fc22.x86_64.rpm palo-5.1-4.fc22.src.rpm palo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/palo/LICENSE COMMENT: As noted above, issue reported upstream here: http://forum.jedox.com/index.php/Thread/4602-Packaging-Palo-Server-for-Fedora/?postID=18974#post18974 palo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary palo COMMENT: Documentation not in public domain / not copyleft licensed; request for same made as part of http://forum.jedox.com/index.php/Thread/4602-Packaging-Palo-Server-for-Fedora/?postID=18974#post18974 palo.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/palo/code/molap/server/5.1/palo-5.1.tgz HTTP Error 404: Not Found COMMENT: As noted above, .tgz not available from upstream, but expected by packaging guidelines. Upstream provides source in a set of folders. .tgz is provided by packager. URL minus filename is the link to the upstream source code. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: palo-debuginfo-5.1-4.fc22.x86_64.rpm palo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/palo-5.1/Library/Engine/CubeFileStream.h COMMENT many incorrect-fsf-address errors removed here as post is too long. palo.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so typeinfo for palo::Task COMMENT many undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings removed here as post is too long. palo.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 palo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/palo/LICENSE palo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary palo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 563 errors, 181 warnings. Requires -------- palo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig config(palo) libboost_regex.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_thread.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libicui18n.so.54()(64bit) libicuuc.so.54()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- palo: config(palo) libhttps.palo.so.0()(64bit) palo palo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- palo: /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1209166 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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