https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875517 --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- There's some critical issues to fix, but after that I can approve the package Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - devel should require the exact main package, not any later version; use %{name}%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release} see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_specific_dependencies - optimization flags not applied. Please either use the built-in macros (%make_build and %make_install) or pass %{optflags} directly - rename the source file when downloading to make it more obvious what package it contains: https://github.com/intel/%{githubname}/archive/v%{githubver}.tar.gz#/%{githubfull}.tar.gz - ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in intel-ipsec-mb See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets EPEL7 has RPM 4.11.3, and EPEL8 has RPM 4.14.2; this change applies to RPM 4.13+. If you want to keep this, gate the ldconfig call to: %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} < 8 %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig %endif - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages This file should be in -devel and not in the main package - license file installation no need to install the license file yourself, this suffices: %license LICENSE rpmbuild will copy the license file to the correct folder ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/review-intel-ipsec- mb/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses/intel-ipsec-mb-0.54.0 see summary above for installing license file [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses/intel- ipsec-mb-0.54.0 see above [!]: %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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package .so file should be in -devel [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. [!]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 2 files. [!]: 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]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in intel- ipsec-mb-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. please use -p when calling install [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]: 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 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: intel-ipsec-mb-0.54.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm intel-ipsec-mb-devel-0.54.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm intel-ipsec-mb-0.54.0-1.fc34.src.rpm intel-ipsec-mb.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libIPSec_MB.so.0.54.0 intel-ipsec-mb.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libIPSec_MB.so 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. intel-ipsec-mb.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/intel/intel-ipsec-mb <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> intel-ipsec-mb.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libIPSec_MB.so.0.54.0 intel-ipsec-mb.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libIPSec_MB.so warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. intel-ipsec-mb-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/intel/intel-ipsec-mb <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- intel-ipsec-mb: /usr/lib64/libIPSec_MB.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/intel/intel-ipsec-mb/archive/v0.54.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8c6d59d68ee567a3c9db0967e3ca18cb61cddd73d07feed8a9b232106607228d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8c6d59d68ee567a3c9db0967e3ca18cb61cddd73d07feed8a9b232106607228d Requires -------- intel-ipsec-mb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libIPSec_MB.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) intel-ipsec-mb-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): intel-ipsec-mb Provides -------- intel-ipsec-mb: intel-ipsec-mb intel-ipsec-mb(x86-64) libIPSec_MB.so.0()(64bit) intel-ipsec-mb-devel: intel-ipsec-mb-devel intel-ipsec-mb-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --name intel-ipsec-mb Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl, R, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, Java 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
