https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702720 Martin Osvald 🛹 <mosvald@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Martin Osvald 🛹 <mosvald@xxxxxxxxxx> --- It's OK from my side now, giving it fedora-review+ Below is a fresh output from fedora-review (went through the manual review needed items again ([ ])). There are few reported issues, but either we opened a new BZs for them (considering them as process review bugs) or found them as not problematic. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed [X] = Passed manual review Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/mosvald/review- frr/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in frr See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets ===== 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. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Expat License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "ISC License GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "ISC License", "GPL (v3 or later)", "ISC License GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "ISC License BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "BSD (unspecified)", "GNU General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "GPL (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "Expat License GPL (v2 or later)". 400 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mosvald/review-frr/licensecheck.txt [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [X]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/yang, /usr/lib/frr, /usr/lib64/frr/modules [X]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/frr, /usr/share/yang, /usr/lib64/frr/modules, /etc/logrotate.d [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]: 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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [X]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if package has .info files. Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in frr [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. [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 61440 bytes in 13 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: 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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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 frr [X]: 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. [?]: 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. [X]: %check is present and all tests pass. [X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [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: [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: frr-7.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm frr-debuginfo-7.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm frr-debugsource-7.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm frr-7.1-1.fc31.src.rpm frr.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C FRRouting supports BGP4, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, ISIS, RIP, RIPng, PIM, NHRP, PBR, EIGRP and BFD. frr.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/vtysh frr.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/frr frr frr.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/frr frr frr.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/frr/daemons frr.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/frr frr frr.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/frr frr frr.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/frr/frr-reload.py frr.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/frr frr frr.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/frr frr frr.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown frr.src: E: description-line-too-long C FRRouting supports BGP4, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, ISIS, RIP, RIPng, PIM, NHRP, PBR, EIGRP and BFD. frr.src:2: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/frr frr.src:82: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 82, tab: line 1) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: frr-debuginfo-7.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- frr: /usr/lib64/frr/modules/bgpd_snmp.so frr: /usr/lib64/frr/modules/ospf6d_snmp.so frr: /usr/lib64/frr/modules/ospfd_snmp.so frr: /usr/lib64/frr/modules/ripd_snmp.so frr: /usr/lib64/frr/modules/zebra_fpm.so frr: /usr/lib64/frr/modules/zebra_irdp.so frr: /usr/lib64/frr/modules/zebra_snmp.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/releases/download/frr-7.1/frr-7.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 290ba09436353be69a266121749c04e076b9ed6fd4d262dc857e7249566c7677 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 96513465a8837b02cf93c1efd9fa88ac06e1189e0fc6a6573f24092773631797 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- frr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /sbin/install-info /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/sh config(frr) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcap.so.2()(64bit) libcares.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libfrr.so.0()(64bit) libfrrsnmp.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libjson-c.so.4()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libnetsnmp.so.35()(64bit) libnetsnmpagent.so.35()(64bit) libnetsnmpmibs.so.35()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libreadline.so.8()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_209)(64bit) libyang libyang.so.0.16()(64bit) ncurses net-snmp rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd frr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): frr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- frr: config(frr) frr frr(x86-64) libfrr.so.0()(64bit) libfrrsnmp.so.0()(64bit) routingdaemon frr-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) frr-debuginfo frr-debuginfo(x86-64) frr-debugsource: frr-debugsource frr-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n frr Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, PHP, Perl, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
