https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826439 --- Comment #9 from Honggang LI <honli@xxxxxxxxxx> --- 1 Package Review 2 ============== 3 4 Legend: 5 [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated 6 [ ] = Manual review needed 7 8 9 Issues: 10 ======= 11 - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 12 Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. 13 See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- 14 guidelines/#_devel_packages That's OK, as the libvma-9.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libvma.so file is used as PRE_LOAD. So, it should be included in the main sub-package. 15 - Package does not use a name that already exists. 16 Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check 17 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libvma 18 See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- 19 guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names It's OK, as we are import libvma again for fedora. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826439#c3 . 20 21 22 ===== MUST items ===== 23 24 C/C++: 25 [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. PASS 26 [ ]: Package contains no static executables. PASS 27 [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a 28 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. 29 [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. 30 [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. 31 [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) 32 [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 33 34 Generic: 35 [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets 36 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging 37 Guidelines. PASS 38 [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. 39 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses 40 found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD (unspecified) GPL (v2)", "BSD 41 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GPL (v3 or later)", "BSD 42 2-clause "Simplified" License GPL (v2)", "Expat License". 113 files 43 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in 44 /home/honli/fedora/libvma/1826439-libvma/licensecheck.txt PASS 45 [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. PASS. 46 [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown 47 must be documented in the spec. PASS 48 [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. PASS 49 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/libvma, /usr/include/mellanox Please fix this. /usr/share/doc/libvma should be owned by sub-package "libvma". /usr/include/mellanox should be owned by sub-package "libvma-devel". 50 [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. 51 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/security/limits.d, 52 /etc/security, /usr/include/mellanox, /usr/share/doc/libvma PASS. The first two directories are co-owned. The last two are duplicated of line 49. 53 [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. PASS 54 [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. PASS 55 [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. PASS 56 [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. PASS 57 [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. PASS. Not GUI application. 58 [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package PASS 59 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. PASS 60 [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory 61 names). Except the doc dir. Others looks good. 62 [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. PASS 63 [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. PASS 64 [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. PASS 65 [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and 66 Provides are present. PASS 67 [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. PASS 68 [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. PASS 69 [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. PASS. Yes, it does. 70 [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. PASS 71 [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. PASS, see inline comments in spec file. 72 [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size 73 (~1MB) or number of files. 74 Note: Documentation size is 184320 bytes in 3 files. PASS 75 [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines PASS 76 [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least 77 one supported primary architecture. 78 [x]: Package installs properly. 79 [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. 80 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). 81 [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the 82 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the 83 license(s) for the package is included in %license. 84 [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. 85 [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 86 [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the 87 beginning of %install. 88 [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. 89 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. 90 [x]: Dist tag is present. 91 [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. 92 [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. 93 [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. 94 [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't 95 work. 96 [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. 97 [x]: No %config files under /usr. 98 [x]: Package is not relocatable. 99 [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as 100 provided in the spec URL. 101 [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format 102 %{name}.spec. 103 [x]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and 104 systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. 105 Note: Systemd service file(s) in libvma 106 [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. 107 [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local 108 109 ===== SHOULD items ===== 110 111 Generic: 112 [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate 113 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. PASS 114 [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). PASS 115 [ ]: Package functions as described. PASS. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826439#c8 116 [ ]: Latest version is packaged. PASS 117 [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. PASS 118 [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream 119 publishes signatures. 120 Note: gpgverify is not used. PASS. NO GPG. 121 [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains 122 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. PASS 123 [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. PASS 124 [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed 125 files. PASS 126 [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. 127 [x]: Buildroot is not present 128 [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or 129 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) 130 [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. 131 [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. 132 [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file 133 [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag 134 [x]: SourceX is a working URL. 135 [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported 136 architectures. 137 [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. 138 139 ===== EXTRA items ===== 140 141 Generic: 142 [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros 143 Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. 144 See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools Please fix this. 145 [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). 146 Note: No rpmlint messages. 147 [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. 148 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). 149 [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package 150 is arched. 151 [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. 152 153 154 Rpmlint 155 ------- 156 Checking: libvma-9.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 157 libvma-devel-9.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 158 libvma-utils-9.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 159 libvma-debuginfo-9.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 160 libvma-debugsource-9.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 161 libvma-9.0.2-1.fc33.src.rpm 162 libvma.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 163 libvma.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libvma.so 164 libvma.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2 165 libvma.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2 line 164 and 165 are false positive. 166 libvma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vma 167 libvma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vmad should be fixed. 168 libvma-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 169 libvma-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vma -> ma, via, v ma 170 libvma-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation 171 libvma-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vma_stats should be fixed. 172 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings. 173 174 175 176 177 Rpmlint (debuginfo) 178 ------------------- 179 Checking: libvma-debuginfo-9.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 180 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 181 182 183 184 185 186 Rpmlint (installed packages) 187 ---------------------------- 188 libvma-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 189 libvma.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 190 libvma.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2 /lib64/librt.so.1 191 libvma.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2 /lib64/libm.so.6 192 libvma.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 193 libvma.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libvma.so 194 libvma.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2 195 libvma.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2 196 libvma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vma 197 libvma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vmad 198 libvma-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 199 libvma-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vma -> ma, via, v ma 200 libvma-utils.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 201 libvma-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation 202 libvma-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vma_stats 203 libvma-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 204 libvma-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 205 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 15 warnings. duplicated error report. 206 207 208 209 Unversioned so-files 210 -------------------- 211 libvma: /usr/lib64/libvma.so 212 213 Source checksums 214 ---------------- 215 https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma/archive/9.0.2/libvma-9.0.2.tar.gz : 216 CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1f273c309f553bd479da229a39b93d53fcf3fdda9b8eae2df973f6b8d02aa164 217 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1f273c309f553bd479da229a39b93d53fcf3fdda9b8eae2df973f6b8d02aa164 218 219 220 Requires 221 -------- 222 libvma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 223 /bin/sh 224 /usr/bin/bash 225 config(libvma) 226 ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) 227 libc.so.6()(64bit) 228 libdl.so.2()(64bit) 229 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) 230 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) 231 libibverbs.so.1()(64bit) 232 libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.0)(64bit) 233 libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.1)(64bit) 234 libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.8)(64bit) 235 libm.so.6()(64bit) 236 libmlx5.so.1()(64bit) 237 libmlx5.so.1(MLX5_1.2)(64bit) 238 libmlx5.so.1(MLX5_1.4)(64bit) 239 libnl-3.so.200()(64bit) 240 libnl-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit) 241 libnl-route-3.so.200()(64bit) 242 libnl-route-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit) 243 libpthread.so.0()(64bit) 244 librdmacm.so.1()(64bit) 245 librdmacm.so.1(RDMACM_1.0)(64bit) 246 librt.so.1()(64bit) 247 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) 248 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) 249 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) 250 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) 251 libvma.so.9()(64bit) 252 rtld(GNU_HASH) 253 254 libvma-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 255 libvma(x86-64) 256 257 libvma-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 258 libc.so.6()(64bit) 259 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) 260 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) 261 libpthread.so.0()(64bit) 262 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) 263 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) 264 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) 265 libvma(x86-64) 266 rtld(GNU_HASH) 267 268 libvma-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 269 270 libvma-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 271 272 273 274 Provides 275 -------- 276 libvma: 277 config(libvma) 278 libvma 279 libvma(x86-64) 280 libvma.so.9()(64bit) 281 282 libvma-devel: 283 libvma-devel 284 libvma-devel(x86-64) 285 286 libvma-utils: 287 libvma-utils 288 libvma-utils(x86-64) 289 290 libvma-debuginfo: 291 debuginfo(build-id) 292 libvma-debuginfo 293 libvma-debuginfo(x86-64) 294 295 libvma-debugsource: 296 libvma-debugsource 297 libvma-debugsource(x86-64) 298 299 300 301 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found 302 ------------------------------ 303 AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libvma-9.0.2/configure.ac:107 Please fix this. 304 305 306 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 307 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1826439 308 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 309 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api 310 Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Perl, Java, R, Python, Ruby 311 Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Thanks -- 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
