https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033 --- Comment #30 from Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= Nothing serious: - Fix missing license headers. - Add a comment explaining the bundling of ptmalloc. - Tweak Summary. For upstream, eventually: - Add manpages - Look into the overlinking issue pointed out by rpmlint. See my inline comments prefixed with ####. ===== 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 502 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1474033-ucx/licensecheck.txt #### GPL is just libtool, which grants additional permissions. OK. #### licensecheck fails to identify the license of most of the source files, #### because their headers say after asserting the copyright: #### See file LICENSE for terms. #### That's OK, though suboptimal for licensecheck detection. #### Some files contain just placeholders: #### * $COPYRIGHT$ #### * $HEADER$ #### To me it's obvious that the LICENSE applies to them as well, but please #### fix those to be on the safe side. [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. #### The Guidelines are not actually that strict anymore. #### A justification for bundling ptmalloc would be welcome. [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. #### ExcludeArch is justified. It can only build on archs explicitly supported #### in src/ucs/arch/. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 10 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]: 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: ucx-static. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed #### For spec compatibility with older distros. [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 ucx- devel , ucx-static , ucx-debuginfo #### The -devel package uses an arch-specific dependency. The -static #### package does not need it. [?]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. #### Tests require specific hardware. Not going to run in Koji. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: ucx-1.2.2-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm ucx-devel-1.2.2-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm ucx-static-1.2.2-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm ucx-debuginfo-1.2.2-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm ucx-1.2.2-1.fc26.src.rpm ucx.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C UCX ucx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intra -> intro, infra, intranet ucx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit ucx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sysv -> sysop ucx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cma -> cam, cm, ca ucx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US knem -> knee, knew, kn em ucx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xpmem -> Memphis ucx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ucx_info ucx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ucx_perftest ucx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ucx_read_profile ucx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ucx-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation ucx.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C UCX ucx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intra -> intro, infra, intranet ucx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit ucx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sysv -> sysop ucx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cma -> cam, cm, ca ucx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US knem -> knee, knew, kn em ucx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xpmem -> Memphis 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 19 warnings. #### Manpages would be nice. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ucx-debuginfo-1.2.2-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory ucx-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.openucx.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> ucx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ucx-static.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.openucx.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> ucx-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation ucx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.openucx.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> ucx.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C UCX #### This is a good point. The name does not need to be repeated in Summary #### of the main package. ucx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intra -> intro, infra, intranet ucx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit ucx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sysv -> sysop ucx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cma -> cam, cm, ca ucx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US knem -> knee, knew, kn em ucx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xpmem -> Memphis ucx.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.openucx.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> ucx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libucm.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1 ucx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libucp.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libibverbs.so.1 ucx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libucp.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libnuma.so.1 ucx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libucp.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 ucx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libucp.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libucm.so.0 ucx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libucp.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1 ucx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libucp.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 ucx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libuct.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libnuma.so.1 ucx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libuct.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 #### Is this overlinking? You may want to look into this upstream. ucx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ucx_info ucx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ucx_perftest ucx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ucx_read_profile 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 25 warnings. Requires -------- ucx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libucm.so.0()(64bit) libucp.so.0()(64bit) libucs.so.0()(64bit) libuct.so.0()(64bit) ucx(x86-64) ucx-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ucx-devel ucx-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ucx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1()(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libnuma.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libucm.so.0()(64bit) libucp.so.0()(64bit) libucs.so.0()(64bit) libuct.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ucx-devel: pkgconfig(ucx) ucx-devel ucx-devel(x86-64) ucx-static: ucx-static ucx-static(x86-64) ucx-debuginfo: ucx-debuginfo ucx-debuginfo(x86-64) ucx: bundled(ptmalloc) bundled(sglib) libucm.so.0()(64bit) libucp.so.0()(64bit) libucs.so.0()(64bit) libuct.so.0()(64bit) ucx ucx(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/amaslenn/ucx/releases/download/v1.2.2/ucx-1.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9f3ea6b3fd2a2941498aaa45a19df49517741949069bd2dc077a79419360ce23 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9f3ea6b3fd2a2941498aaa45a19df49517741949069bd2dc077a79419360ce23 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1474033 Buildroot used: fedora-26-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
