[Bug 1304632] Review Request: libmlx5 - Mellanox Connect-IB InfiniBand HCA Userspace Driver

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304632

Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |kheib@xxxxxxxxxx
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(kheib@xxxxxxxxxx)



--- Comment #6 from Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx> ---

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
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages


===== 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]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)",
     "Unknown or generated". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
     present.
     Note: Package has .a files: libmlx5-static.
[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.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
Is this:
Provides: libibverbs-driver.%{_arch}
Being unversioned and without a driver name attached, it seems useless.

[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     libmlx5-static , libmlx5-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.2.15 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
Mock Version: 1.2.15
INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.15
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-static-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
--releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install
/home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-static-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
WARNING: unable to delete selinux filesystems
(/tmp/mock-selinux-plugin.y1d75e0v): [Errno 1] Operation not permitted:
'/tmp/mock-selinux-plugin.y1d75e0v'


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
          libmlx5-static-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
          libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
          libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc25.src.rpm
libmlx5.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mellanox -> Melanoma
libmlx5.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libibverbs ->
verbalizes
libmlx5.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/libibverbs.d/mlx5.driver
libmlx5-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libmlx5.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mellanox -> Melanoma
libmlx5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libibverbs -> verbalizes
libmlx5.src:5: W: unversioned-explicit-provides libibverbs-driver.%{_arch}
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.



I think if you fix up that Provides, or explain it, we will be good to go.

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]