https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554 --- Comment #8 from Chris King <bunnyapoc@xxxxxxxxx> --- I am as of yet unsponsored so this is an informal review, and even if I were sponsored, this package is a bit out of my wheelhouse. That said, hopefully my attempted review doesn't do more harm than good. LGTM besides the owning of directories in the cross-headers package and a few other things which are probably just a result of my lack of experience with advanced specfile usage and the kernel. I know that you aren't supposed to remove rpmlint lines, but the complaints about the FSF's address were excessive so I removed them. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package has unowned directories. - Package tries to own directories owned by other packages (although I think this might be necessary). - %defattr is present but not needed, however there is justification for this - I do not see why %define is necessary over %global when used, but I fully expect this is due to me misunderstanding when %define is applicable. - Lots of rpmlint complaints about mispellings etc, and LOTS of complaints about the fsf's address, but I expect this is all either on upstream or acceptable. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/arm64-linux-gnu/include, /usr/x86-linux-gnu, /usr/powerpc-linux-gnu/include, /usr/arm-linux- gnu, /usr/x86-linux-gnu/include, /usr/powerpc-linux-gnu, /usr/arm64 -linux-gnu, /usr/arm-linux-gnu/include, /usr/s390-linux-gnu, /usr/s390 -linux-gnu/include [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/scsi(kernel- headers, glibc-headers), /usr/include/xen(kernel-headers, xen-devel), /usr(filesystem), /usr/include(filesystem), /usr/include/rdma(kernel- headers, libfabric-devel, rdma-core-devel), /usr/arm-linux-gnu (binutils-arm-linux-gnu) [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. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in kernel- cross-headers [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define base_sublevel 17, %define stable_update 0, %define stablerev %{stable_update}, %define stable_base %{stable_update}, %define rpmversion 4.%{base_sublevel}.%{stable_update}, %define upstream_sublevel %(echo $((%{base_sublevel} + 1))), %define gitrev 0, %define rpmversion 4.%{upstream_sublevel}.0, %define srcversion %{fedora_build}%{?buildid}, %define rctag .rc%rcrev, %define rctag .rc0, %define gittag .git%gitrev, %define gittag .git0, %define srcversion 0%{?rctag}%{?gittag}.%{fedora_build}%{?buildid}, %define pkg_release %{?srcversion}%{?dist} [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 [-]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: kernel-headers-4.18.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc29.x86_64.rpm kernel-cross-headers-4.18.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc29.x86_64.rpm kernel-headers-4.18.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc29.src.rpm kernel-headers.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) glibc -> glib, glib c kernel-headers.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glibc -> glib, glib c kernel-headers.x86_64: E: no-binary kernel-headers.x86_64: W: no-documentation kernel-headers.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr LOTS OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT INCORRECT FSF ADDRESS kernel-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr arm-linux-gnu kernel-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr arm64-linux-gnu kernel-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr powerpc-linux-gnu kernel-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr s390-linux-gnu kernel-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr x86-linux-gnu kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) glibc -> glib, glib c kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glibc -> glib, glib c kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: no-documentation LOTS OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT INCORRECT FSF ADDRESS kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr arm-linux-gnu kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr arm64-linux-gnu kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr powerpc-linux-gnu kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr s390-linux-gnu kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr x86-linux-gnu kernel-headers.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) glibc -> glib, glib c kernel-headers.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glibc -> glib, glib c kernel-headers.src:129: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 13, tab: line 129) kernel-headers.src: W: invalid-url Source0: kernel-headers-0.rc6.git0.1.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 550 errors, 20 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory kernel-headers.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) glibc -> glib, glib c kernel-headers.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glibc -> glib, glib c kernel-headers.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.kernel.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> kernel-headers.x86_64: E: no-binary kernel-headers.x86_64: W: no-documentation kernel-headers.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr LOTS OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT INCORRECT FSF ADDRESS kernel-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr arm-linux-gnu kernel-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr arm64-linux-gnu kernel-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr powerpc-linux-gnu kernel-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr s390-linux-gnu kernel-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr x86-linux-gnu kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) glibc -> glib, glib c kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glibc -> glib, glib c kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: no-documentation LOTS MORE COMPLAINTS ABOUT INCORRECT FSF ADDRESS kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr arm-linux-gnu kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr arm64-linux-gnu kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr powerpc-linux-gnu kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr s390-linux-gnu kernel-cross-headers.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr x86-linux-gnu 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 550 errors, 18 warnings. Requires -------- kernel-headers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): kernel-cross-headers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- kernel-headers: glibc-kernheaders kernel-headers kernel-headers(x86-64) kernel-cross-headers: kernel-cross-headers kernel-cross-headers(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1607554 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/FW3ETSX2YUWL3R6R3V73PDDVZIOSV3U6/
