https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298665 Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx |nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #15 from Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> --- [We're getting close to completion of this review, so I'm reassigning this to Neil Horman who has package sponsor powers and tentatively agreed to sponsor you. I remain on the CC list.] I see you excluded most of the architectures, just because libvma was not tested on them. I think your standards for inclusion are too high :-) For example, very few Fedora packagers test their packages on i686 these days, but they don't exclude that arch. But whatever, I'll leave that choice to you. Note that you misspelled "libvma" as "libmva" in the comments. I realized the COPYING file (just like the headers in the source files) is somewhat contradictory: /* * Copyright (C) Mellanox Technologies Ltd. 2001-2013. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. * * This software product is a proprietary product of Mellanox Technologies Ltd. * (the "Company") and all right, title, and interest in and to the software product, * including all associated intellectual property rights, are and shall * remain exclusively with the Company. The above paragraph makes it look like the source code was never meant to leak outside the Company. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it. * * This software is made available under either the GPL v2 license or a commercial license. OK, a relief! To clear any doubts, would it be possible to apply the GPLv2 the way the FSF recommends it?: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html#SEC4 Just make it "version 2 of the License" without the "or (at your option) any later version". * If you wish to obtain a commercial license, please contact Mellanox at support@xxxxxxxxxxxx. */ OK, nothing wrong with a small ad. This line can stay. In %build I recommend running make with V=1 so that the compiler command lines are visible in build.log. Here's edited output from the fedora-review tool: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= (fedora-review reported an installation error, which was a false positive. It also complained about *.so in the main package, but we agreed this is necessary in this case.) ===== 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. 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 277 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michich/1298665-libvma/licensecheck.txt ### The "unknown license" is GPLv2 - the source files use a different license header than the one recommended by FSF. The GPLv3 files are src/vma/config_parser.[ch] - they are generated by GNU Bison and they permit the use in non-GPLv3 software by the usual Bison license exception. [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. [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config (noreplace) /etc/security/limits.d/30 -libvma-limits.conf ### I'm not sure if fedora-review is stricter than rpmbuild about the whitespace, but you'd better remove the space. [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. [x]: 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. ### Well, it does use ExcludeArch, but the use is explained. So OK. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: 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: [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libvma- debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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: libvma-7.0.14-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm libvma-devel-7.0.14-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm libvma-utils-7.0.14-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm libvma-debuginfo-7.0.14-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm libvma-7.0.14-2.fc25.src.rpm libvma.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libvma.so libvma-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libvma-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation libvma-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vma_stats 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- libvma-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libvma(x86-64) libvma-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libvma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig config(libvma) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1()(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libnl-3.so.200()(64bit) libnl-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit) libnl-route-3.so.200()(64bit) libnl-route-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librdmacm.so.1()(64bit) librdmacm.so.1(RDMACM_1.0)(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libvma.so.7()(64bit) pam rtld(GNU_HASH) libvma-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 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) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libvma(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libvma-devel: libvma-devel libvma-devel(x86-64) libvma-debuginfo: libvma-debuginfo libvma-debuginfo(x86-64) libvma: config(libvma) libvma libvma(x86-64) libvma.so.7()(64bit) libvma-utils: libvma-utils libvma-utils(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- libvma: /usr/lib64/libvma.so Source checksums ---------------- http://www.mellanox.com/downloads/Accelerator/libvma-7.0.14.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c13a6576e3d94cff9e5456d982623253fa5e07051b01de4223301f2adcb9cc59 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c13a6576e3d94cff9e5456d982623253fa5e07051b01de4223301f2adcb9cc59 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libvma-7.0.14/configure.ac:28 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1298665 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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