https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298665 --- Comment #16 from alexv@xxxxxxxxxxxx --- (In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #15) > [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. I see, we will reconsider this. > Note that you misspelled "libvma" as "libmva" in the comments. > I will fix the spelling. > > 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". > I am checking if we can make this change. > * 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. > OK, I will add it. > > 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. > OK, I will fix this. > [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