https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896368 --- Comment #2 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55631726 > License: MIT and BSD and BSD with advertising Please, indicate which bits of the package use which license in a comment above this line if possible. Also, licensecheck found the ISC license which should probably be added to this line: ISC License ----------- ntpsec-1.2.0/libntp/emalloc.c > BuildRequires: libcap-devel openssl-devel pps-tools-devel python3-devel > BuildRequires: bison gcc gnupg2 m4 rubygem-asciidoctor systemd waf Split these into individual lines and sort alphabetically for better readability. > Conflicts: ntp ntpdate > Obsoletes: ntp < 4.2.8p16 ntpdate < 4.2.8p16 Would it make sense to also add a Provides entry to the SPEC file? > # Fix egg info to use a shorter version which will work as an rpm provide > sed -i 's|NTPSEC_VERSION_EXTENDED|NTPSEC_VERSION|' pylib/ntp-in.egg-info > [...] > # Modify default configuration > sed -i -e '/^pool .*pool\.ntp\.org/s|[^ ]*pool.ntp.org|2.%{vendorzone}\0|' \ > -e '/^pool /a # Reduce the number of used servers\ntos maxclock 5' \ > -e '/^pool /G' \ > etc/ntp.d/use-pool > sed -i '/^logfile/d' etc/ntp.d/use-performance-logging Are these changes relevant only to the Fedora package or would it make sense to submit them upstream as patches? > %{_sbindir}/ntpd > %{_libdir}/ntp/libntpc.so* The package should also own "%{_libdir}/ntp/". Full review below. Please, have a look at the inlined comments: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "NTP License BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* NTP License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License", "ISC License". 663 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/ntpsec/ntpsec/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/ntp [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/ntp [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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]: 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 ntpsec [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ntpsec-1.2.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm ntpsec-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm ntpsec-debugsource-1.2.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm ntpsec-1.2.0-1.fc34.src.rpm ntpsec.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided ntp ntpsec.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided ntpdate ntpsec.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ntp/libntpc.so Review: Do we want a -devel subpackage or is this SO file for internal use only? ntpsec.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate ['/var/log/ntpstats'] Review: Missing Requires on logrotate? ntpsec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ntpdate 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ntpsec-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name ntpsec-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name ntpsec-debugsource (none): E: no installed packages by name ntpsec 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- ntpsec: /usr/lib64/ntp/libntpc.so Source checksums ---------------- https://ftp.ntpsec.org/pub/releases/ntpsec.gpg.pub.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0d437557f13421aa7f63b6b6a00b825687437a50fca1eed821ef1cf7cb7ff6b7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0d437557f13421aa7f63b6b6a00b825687437a50fca1eed821ef1cf7cb7ff6b7 https://ftp.ntpsec.org/pub/releases/ntpsec-1.2.0.tar.gz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f32331888a05d858627c7b73ebf4e33197d3b3a7a0b9e6d582b98be71491395e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f32331888a05d858627c7b73ebf4e33197d3b3a7a0b9e6d582b98be71491395e https://ftp.ntpsec.org/pub/releases/ntpsec-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6a7c7561a750519fe3441cbbaf1f684b379b97b655da4bf9cf0dd2052a4a02c8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6a7c7561a750519fe3441cbbaf1f684b379b97b655da4bf9cf0dd2052a4a02c8 Requires -------- ntpsec (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/sh config(ntpsec) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcap.so.2()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libntpc.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_1)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) shadow-utils systemd ntpsec-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ntpsec-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- ntpsec: config(ntpsec) libntpc.so.1()(64bit) ntpsec ntpsec(x86-64) python3.9dist(ntp) python3dist(ntp) ntpsec-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) ntpsec-debuginfo ntpsec-debuginfo(x86-64) ntpsec-debugsource: ntpsec-debugsource ntpsec-debugsource(x86-64) -- 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
