https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502 --- Comment #5 from marcindulak <Marcin.Dulak@xxxxxxxxx> --- Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r03/daq.spec SRPM URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r03/daq-2.0.6-1.fc23.src.rpm thanks, my answers below (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > - Files in sfbpf/ are licensed under BSD* licenses. > Add BSD to License tag. Added a comment to daq.spec about sfbpf. I had a discussion once which concluded that one should use an "effective" license: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893#c11 Daq is very explicit about being GPLv2 https://github.com/jasonish/daq/blob/master/COPYING so I think we have no choice. > > - devel sub-packages do not need to provide COPYING fixed > > - %{_configure} macro is wrong. > Use %configure fixed > > - Following lines are useless > > %post -n %{name}-devel -p /sbin/ldconfig > %postun -n %{name}-devel -p /sbin/ldconfig fixed > > - %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} = %make_build fixed > > - Once you set %configure, probably you will not need using > > %{__make} install prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} > exec_prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_exec_prefix} libdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir} > > anymore, but %make_install that's right, all problems related to %{__make} install requiring extra arguments disappeared! > > - Static files are not necessary, unless there is some specific reason. > Use --enable-static=no actually Snort responds that the static libraries are for convenience of using Snort https://sourceforge.net/p/snort/mailman/message/35489435/ I got rid of all the static libraries for now. > > - AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found > ------------------------------ > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: daq-2.0.6/configure.ac:13 > > See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [!]: 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. I think this is about /usr/lib64/daq/? They are not in ld path. > [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. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)", "Unknown or > generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", > "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2)". 19 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/sagitter/1394502-daq/licensecheck.txt > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. I think this is the case > [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. using %configure macro now, should be OK > [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. > [!]: 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. > [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. looks to me daq-debuginfo is useful (gdb loads symbols) > [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 20480 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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if > present. > Note: Package has .a files: daq-modules-static, daq-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. > [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 daq- > modules , daq-modules-static , daq-static , daq-debuginfo > [ ]: 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. now scriplets are for daq package only > [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [?]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file > [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros > Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. > See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools I don't think we can fix that. Maybe Snort upstream will consider this at some point, but not even for the new daq-2.2 as far as I can see (https://github.com/Xiche/libdaq) > [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). > Note: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [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: daq-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm > daq-modules-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm > daq-modules-static-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm > daq-devel-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm > daq-static-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm > daq-debuginfo-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm > daq-2.0.6-1.fc26.src.rpm > daq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpcap -> slipcase > daq.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsfbpf.so.0.0.1 > exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 > daq-modules.x86_64: W: no-documentation > daq-modules-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation > daq-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > daq-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > daq-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary daq-modules-config > daq-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation > daq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpcap -> slipcase > daq.src: W: invalid-url Source0: > https://www.snort.org/downloads/snort/daq-2.0.6.tar.gz HTTP Error 403: > Forbidden > 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (debuginfo) > ------------------- > Checking: daq-debuginfo-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > daq-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > daq-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > daq-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary daq-modules-config > daq-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation > daq-modules-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation > daq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpcap -> slipcase > daq.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsfbpf.so.0.0.1 > exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 > daq-modules.x86_64: W: no-documentation > 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. > > > > Requires > -------- > daq-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /bin/sh > /sbin/ldconfig > daq(x86-64) > libdaq.so.2()(64bit) > libsfbpf.so.0()(64bit) > > daq-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > daq-devel(x86-64) > > daq-modules-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > daq-modules(x86-64) > > daq (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /sbin/ldconfig > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libdl.so.2()(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > daq-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > daq-modules (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libdnet.so.1()(64bit) > libnetfilter_queue.so.1()(64bit) > libnfnetlink.so.0()(64bit) > libpcap.so.1()(64bit) > libsfbpf.so.0()(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > > > Provides > -------- > daq-devel: > daq-devel > daq-devel(x86-64) > > daq-static: > daq-static > daq-static(x86-64) > > daq-modules-static: > daq-modules-static > daq-modules-static(x86-64) > > daq: > daq > daq(x86-64) > libdaq.so.2()(64bit) > libsfbpf.so.0()(64bit) > > daq-debuginfo: > daq-debuginfo > daq-debuginfo(x86-64) > > daq-modules: > daq-modules > daq-modules(x86-64) > > > > Unversioned so-files > -------------------- > daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_afpacket.so > daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_dump.so > daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_ipfw.so > daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_nfq.so > daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_pcap.so > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://www.snort.org/downloads/snort/daq-2.0.6.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > b40e1d1273e08aaeaa86e69d4f28d535b7e53bdb3898adf539266b63137be7cb > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > b40e1d1273e08aaeaa86e69d4f28d535b7e53bdb3898adf539266b63137be7cb > > > AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found > ------------------------------ > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: daq-2.0.6/configure.ac:13 > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1394502 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ > Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, > R, PHP > 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx