https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267009 John Dulaney <jdulaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jdulaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from John Dulaney <jdulaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Unofficial review: rpmlint is throwing a few issues: ola.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/libolacommon.so.0.0.0 ola-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ola-devel.x86_64: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ExpectedResults.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ModelCollector.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestState.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/DMXSender.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/ClientWrapper.py 644 /usr/bin/env python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestLogger.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestRunner.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ResponderTest.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestHelpers.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/DMXConstants.py 644 /usr/bin/env python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestCategory.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ExpectedResults.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ModelCollector.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestRunner.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ResponderTest.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestHelpers.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestState.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestLogger.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/DMXSender.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestCategory.py 644 /usr/bin/python This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/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 %license. Note: Cannot find MIT-LICENSE.txt in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) LGPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0) LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 400 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild /review-ola/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev, /usr/share/ola, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 4 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-ola , ola-rdm-tests , ola-debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1832960 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.13 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.13 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.13 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-devel-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/python2-ola-0.9.8-1.fc23.noarch.rpm /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-rdm-tests-0.9.8-1.fc23.noarch.rpm /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-debuginfo-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-debuginfo-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-23-x86_64/root/ --releasever 23 install /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-devel-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/python2-ola-0.9.8-1.fc23.noarch.rpm /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-rdm-tests-0.9.8-1.fc23.noarch.rpm /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-debuginfo-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-debuginfo-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: ola-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm ola-devel-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm python2-ola-0.9.8-1.fc23.noarch.rpm ola-rdm-tests-0.9.8-1.fc23.noarch.rpm ola-debuginfo-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm ola-0.9.8-1.fc23.src.rpm ola.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/libolacommon.so.0.0.0 ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_rdm_get ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_rdm_discover ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_set_dmx ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_rdm_set ola-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ola-devel.x86_64: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig python2-ola.noarch: W: no-documentation python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ExpectedResults.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ModelCollector.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestState.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/DMXSender.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/ClientWrapper.py 644 /usr/bin/env python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestLogger.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestRunner.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ResponderTest.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestHelpers.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/DMXConstants.py 644 /usr/bin/env python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestCategory.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ExpectedResults.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ModelCollector.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestRunner.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ResponderTest.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestHelpers.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestState.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestLogger.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/DMXSender.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestCategory.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdm_model_collector.py ola-rdm-tests.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdm_responder_test.py ola-rdm-tests.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdm_test_server.py ola.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/OpenLightingProject/ola/releases/download/0.9.8/ola-0.9.8.tar.gz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 22 errors, 11 warnings. Requires -------- ola (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libavahi-client.so.3()(64bit) libavahi-common.so.3()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblo.so.7()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmicrohttpd.so.10()(64bit) libola.so.1()(64bit) libolaartnet.so.0()(64bit) libolaartnetconf.so.0()(64bit) libolacommon.so.0()(64bit) liboladummy.so.0()(64bit) libolae131.so.0()(64bit) libolae131conf.so.0()(64bit) libolaespnet.so.0()(64bit) libolagpio.so.0()(64bit) libolagpiocore.so.0()(64bit) libolakarate.so.0()(64bit) libolakinet.so.0()(64bit) libolamilinst.so.0()(64bit) libolaopendmx.so.0()(64bit) libolaopenpixelcontrol.so.0()(64bit) libolaosc.so.0()(64bit) libolapathport.so.0()(64bit) libolarenard.so.0()(64bit) libolasandnet.so.0()(64bit) libolaserver.so.0()(64bit) libolaserverplugininterface.so.0()(64bit) libolashownet.so.0()(64bit) libolaspi.so.0()(64bit) libolaspicore.so.0()(64bit) libolastageprofi.so.0()(64bit) libolatrigger.so.0()(64bit) libolauartdmx.so.0()(64bit) libolausbdmx.so.0()(64bit) libolausbpro.so.0()(64bit) libolausbproconf.so.0()(64bit) libprotobuf.so.9()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ola-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig /usr/bin/pkg-config libola.so.1()(64bit) libolaartnet.so.0()(64bit) libolaartnetconf.so.0()(64bit) libolacommon.so.0()(64bit) liboladummy.so.0()(64bit) libolae131.so.0()(64bit) libolae131conf.so.0()(64bit) libolaespnet.so.0()(64bit) libolagpio.so.0()(64bit) libolagpiocore.so.0()(64bit) libolakarate.so.0()(64bit) libolakinet.so.0()(64bit) libolamilinst.so.0()(64bit) libolaopendmx.so.0()(64bit) libolaopenpixelcontrol.so.0()(64bit) libolaosc.so.0()(64bit) libolapathport.so.0()(64bit) libolarenard.so.0()(64bit) libolasandnet.so.0()(64bit) libolaserver.so.0()(64bit) libolaserverplugininterface.so.0()(64bit) libolashownet.so.0()(64bit) libolaspi.so.0()(64bit) libolaspicore.so.0()(64bit) libolastageprofi.so.0()(64bit) libolatrigger.so.0()(64bit) libolauartdmx.so.0()(64bit) libolausbdmx.so.0()(64bit) libolausbpro.so.0()(64bit) libolausbproconf.so.0()(64bit) ola(x86-64) pkgconfig(protobuf) protobuf-devel ola-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python2-ola (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ola protobuf-python python(abi) ola-rdm-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) python2-ola Provides -------- ola: bundled(angular-route) bundled(angularjs) bundled(bootstrap) bundled(jquery) libola.so.1()(64bit) libolaartnet.so.0()(64bit) libolaartnetconf.so.0()(64bit) libolacommon.so.0()(64bit) liboladummy.so.0()(64bit) libolae131.so.0()(64bit) libolae131conf.so.0()(64bit) libolaespnet.so.0()(64bit) libolagpio.so.0()(64bit) libolagpiocore.so.0()(64bit) libolakarate.so.0()(64bit) libolakinet.so.0()(64bit) libolamilinst.so.0()(64bit) libolaopendmx.so.0()(64bit) libolaopenpixelcontrol.so.0()(64bit) libolaosc.so.0()(64bit) libolapathport.so.0()(64bit) libolarenard.so.0()(64bit) libolasandnet.so.0()(64bit) libolaserver.so.0()(64bit) libolaserverplugininterface.so.0()(64bit) libolashownet.so.0()(64bit) libolaspi.so.0()(64bit) libolaspicore.so.0()(64bit) libolastageprofi.so.0()(64bit) libolatrigger.so.0()(64bit) libolauartdmx.so.0()(64bit) libolausbdmx.so.0()(64bit) libolausbpro.so.0()(64bit) libolausbproconf.so.0()(64bit) ola ola(x86-64) ola-devel: ola-devel ola-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libola) pkgconfig(libolaartnetconf) pkgconfig(libolae131conf) pkgconfig(libolaserver) pkgconfig(libolausbproconf) ola-debuginfo: ola-debuginfo ola-debuginfo(x86-64) python2-ola: python-ola python2-ola ola-rdm-tests: bundled(jquery) bundled(jquery-ui) ola-rdm-tests Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/OpenLightingProject/ola/releases/download/0.9.8/ola-0.9.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1c1e0fc1810b0c0857563bc481c872b8ed5d2e62c97c1083c82eabd7ebbd70a6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1c1e0fc1810b0c0857563bc481c872b8ed5d2e62c97c1083c82eabd7ebbd70a6 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ola Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 I note that you are bundling. I realize that this is now sort of technically allowed, but, it's still not best practice. Would you be able to unbundle these libs? If you can't, it's surviveable, but better to use the libs in the repos already if you can. -- 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