https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198498 --- Comment #21 from Rich Mattes <richmattes@xxxxxxxxx> --- 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: [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: According to the source files, the license is LGPLv2; there's no "or any later version" statement in the copyright headers. NOTE: License strings in the License: field must have "and" between them, so it should read "LGPLv2 and BSD and MIT and zlib" There should also be comments as to which license applies to which pieces - the main library is LGPL, and the some of the bundled deps are not. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 174080 bytes in 6 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 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 [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 ===== 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 [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2734080 bytes in /usr/share [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: libwebsockets-1.6.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libwebsockets-devel-1.6.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libwebsockets-debuginfo-1.6.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libwebsockets-1.6.1-1.fc23.src.rpm libwebsockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US websocket -> web socket, web-socket, socket libwebsockets.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.6.1-2 ['1.6.1-1.fc23', '1.6.1-1'] libwebsockets.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ BSD MIT zlib libwebsockets.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libwebsockets.so.6 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list libwebsockets.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libwebsockets-test-client libwebsockets.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libwebsockets-test-ping libwebsockets.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libwebsockets-test-server-extpoll libwebsockets.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libwebsockets-test-server-pthreads libwebsockets.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libwebsockets-test-server libwebsockets.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libwebsockets-test-fraggle libwebsockets.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libwebsockets-test-echo libwebsockets-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ BSD MIT zlib libwebsockets-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libwebsockets-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ BSD MIT zlib libwebsockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US websocket -> web socket, web-socket, socket libwebsockets.src: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ BSD MIT zlib libwebsockets.src:18: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(sha1-hollerbach) libwebsockets.src:19: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(base64-decode) libwebsockets.src:20: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(ssl-http2) libwebsockets.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %patch0 libwebsockets.src:19: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 19) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 21 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libwebsockets-debuginfo-1.6.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libwebsockets-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ BSD MIT zlib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory libwebsockets.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.6.1-2 ['1.6.1-1.fc23', '1.6.1-1'] libwebsockets.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ BSD MIT zlib libwebsockets.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libwebsockets.so.6 /lib64/libm.so.6 libwebsockets.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libwebsockets.so.6 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list libwebsockets.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libwebsockets-test-ping libwebsockets.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libwebsockets-test-echo libwebsockets.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libwebsockets-test-server-extpoll libwebsockets.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libwebsockets-test-fraggle libwebsockets.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libwebsockets-test-client libwebsockets.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libwebsockets-test-server libwebsockets.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libwebsockets-test-server-pthreads libwebsockets-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ BSD MIT zlib libwebsockets-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ BSD MIT zlib libwebsockets-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/rich/fedora/1198498-libwebsockets/srpm/libwebsockets.spec 2016-01-31 11:05:24.566699701 -0500 +++ /home/rich/fedora/1198498-libwebsockets/srpm-unpacked/libwebsockets.spec 2016-01-24 06:06:20.000000000 -0500 @@ -26,4 +26,5 @@ %package devel Summary: Headers for developing programs that will use %{name} +Group: Development/Libraries Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} @@ -76,4 +77,5 @@ %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/%{name}.pc + %changelog * Sun Jan 24 2016 Fabian Affolter <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.6.1-2 Requires -------- libwebsockets (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) libwebsockets.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libwebsockets-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libwebsockets-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libwebsockets(x86-64) libwebsockets.so.6()(64bit) Provides -------- libwebsockets: bundled(base64-decode) bundled(sha1-hollerbach) bundled(ssl-http2) libwebsockets libwebsockets(x86-64) libwebsockets.so.6()(64bit) libwebsockets-debuginfo: libwebsockets-debuginfo libwebsockets-debuginfo(x86-64) libwebsockets-devel: libwebsockets-devel libwebsockets-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libwebsockets) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/warmcat/libwebsockets/archive/v1.6.1.tar.gz#/libwebsockets-1.6.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 482ea24e8c8f50f456e93eae3a5ec8f00b2172736bd548b2a83926df957816ef CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 482ea24e8c8f50f456e93eae3a5ec8f00b2172736bd548b2a83926df957816ef ===================================== Main items: - Update the License: field to the correct format, verify version of LGPL in use, and add some more comments. I also thought it was interesting that rpmlint flagged the openssl cipher list, based on the new-ish crypto policy: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies It looks like libwebsockets never sets the cipher list directly, it just provides an "ssl_cipher_list" string in its api for library users, and if the user doesn't explicitly provide a cipher list, the function is not called and the system default is used. -- 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