https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322168 Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(mschmidt@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #5 from Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/infiniband, /etc/rdma [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ibacm- devel ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. /usr/lib64/ibacm/libibacmp.so is an ibacm plugin, not in ld path => OK. [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)", "Unknown or generated". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michich/1322168-ibacm/licensecheck.txt It's the BSD license, only with unusual formatting that confused the review tool. The toplevel COPYING file says the recipient can choose BSD or GPLv2, but the notices in source files specify only the BSD license. I think it's no problem, because the BSD license is GPLv2-compatible anyway, but we should ask upstream to make the notices consistent, or to drop the explicit GPLv2 option (which, due to the inherent license compatibility does not matter much.). [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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/include/infiniband, /etc/rdma /usr/include/infiniband is already owned by multiple packages, so ibacm can just own it too. /etc/rdma is owned by the rdma package. ibacm should either co-own the directory or have "Requires: rdma". [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. [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. [x]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ibacm- devel , ibacm-debuginfo ibacm-devel should use an arch-specific dependency (add %{?_isa}) [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. I will take care of 0001-Coverity-and-compile-warning-fixes.patch. [-]: 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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Could call 'install' with '-p' in the spec to preserve the timestamp of ibacm.service. ibacm_opts.cfg is generated at build time. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint No, it really didn't fail to build. [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: ibacm-1.2.0-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm ibacm-devel-1.2.0-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm ibacm-debuginfo-1.2.0-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm ibacm-1.2.0-2.fc25.src.rpm ibacm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookups -> lookup, lockups, hookups ibacm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librdmacm -> Librium ibacm.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ibacm/libibacmp.so ibacm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librdmacm -> Librium ibacm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ibacm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookups -> lookup, lockups, hookups ibacm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librdmacm -> Librium 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Requires -------- ibacm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ibacm ibacm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ibacm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(ibacm) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libibumad.so.3()(64bit) libibumad.so.3(IBUMAD_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1()(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.1)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd Provides -------- ibacm-devel: ibacm-devel ibacm-devel(x86-64) ibacm-debuginfo: ibacm-debuginfo ibacm-debuginfo(x86-64) ibacm: config(ibacm) ibacm ibacm(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- ibacm: /usr/lib64/ibacm/libibacmp.so Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/rdmacm/ibacm-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7b57952d33580d014d68e7029b81de300fcce790aca042fac7cc3f23d512f286 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7b57952d33580d014d68e7029b81de300fcce790aca042fac7cc3f23d512f286 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1322168 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx