https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725840 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ==== 1. The project does advertise its license as LGPLv2+. However, there are files with other licenses. MIT: src/simclist.c src/simclist.h src/strlcpy.c BSD: src/misc.h src/openct: the entire directory src/parser.h src/strlcpycat.h src/tokenparser.l 2. For ease of verifying that the correct compiler flags are in use, please either pass --disable-silent-rules to %configure, or add V=1 to the make invocation. Incidentally, the %make_build macro is equivalent to the make invocation in the spec file. It's a convenient shorthand that I recommend. 3. The package does contain bundled libraries. They must either be unbundled or the correct Provides added to the spec file, as described here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling The bundled libraries I see are: SimCList: http://mij.oltrelinux.com/devel/simclist/ OpenCT: https://github.com/OpenSC/openct/wiki 4. Add the -p flag to the install invocations in %install to preserve timestamps. 5. Fix the script-without-shebang error produced by rpmlint; see below. *Both* invocations of install in %install should pass -m 644. 6. The .so has undefined symbols: $ ldd -r /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/ifd-acsccid.bundle/Contents/Linux/libasccid.so linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffc3257b000) libusb-1.0.so.0 => /lib64/libusb-1.0.so.0 (0x00007f121ef66000) libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x00007f121ef45000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f121ed7e000) libudev.so.1 => /lib64/libudev.so.1 (0x00007f121ed51000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f121efae000) libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007f121ed37000) undefined symbol: log_xxd (./libacsccid.so) undefined symbol: log_msg (./libacsccid.so) Those symbols are defined in src/debug.c, which is apparently not linked into the final .so. ===== 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. This is okay. The .so is a plugin, not a library in the 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. [!]: 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)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "Expat License", "GNU General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "ISC License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jjames/1725840-pcsc-lite- acsccid/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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. [-]: 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. [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 133120 bytes in 4 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 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pcsc-lite-acsccid-1.1.6-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm pcsc-lite-acsccid-debuginfo-1.1.6-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm pcsc-lite-acsccid-debugsource-1.1.6-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm pcsc-lite-acsccid-1.1.6-1.fc31.src.rpm pcsc-lite-acsccid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcscd pcsc-lite-acsccid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccid -> kid, acid pcsc-lite-acsccid.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/pcsc-lite-acsccid/LICENSE.openct pcsc-lite-acsccid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcscd pcsc-lite-acsccid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccid -> kid, acid 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pcsc-lite-acsccid-debuginfo-1.1.6-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- pcsc-lite-acsccid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcscd pcsc-lite-acsccid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccid -> kid, acid pcsc-lite-acsccid.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/pcsc-lite-acsccid/LICENSE.openct 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- pcsc-lite-acsccid: /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/ifd-acsccid.bundle/Contents/Linux/libacsccid.so Source checksums ---------------- https://downloads.sourceforge.net/acsccid/acsccid-1.1.6.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 71d505cb5309ac6b9f5b98246c8979615794488ebfdc1ccdd978116213b43539 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 71d505cb5309ac6b9f5b98246c8979615794488ebfdc1ccdd978116213b43539 Requires -------- pcsc-lite-acsccid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) pcsc-lite rtld(GNU_HASH) pcsc-lite-acsccid-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pcsc-lite-acsccid-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pcsc-lite-acsccid: libacsccid.so()(64bit) pcsc-lite-acsccid pcsc-lite-acsccid(x86-64) pcsc-lite-acsccid-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pcsc-lite-acsccid-debuginfo pcsc-lite-acsccid-debuginfo(x86-64) pcsc-lite-acsccid-debugsource: pcsc-lite-acsccid-debugsource pcsc-lite-acsccid-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1725840 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, R, fonts, Ruby, Perl, Ocaml 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
