https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1899884 --- Comment #1 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56073379 > Release: 1%{?dist} > License: GPL Upstream mentions the package is BSD-licensed: https://github.com/intel/mptcpd/blob/master/COPYING However, that's a different upstream than the one linked on the page from the URL: https://multipath-tcp.org/ Sources: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp/blob/mptcp_v0.95/COPYING licensecheck reports GPL, LGPL and BSD: *No copyright* GNU General Public License (v2.0) ------------------------------------------------ mptcpd-0.5/LICENSES/README BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License --------------------------------------- mptcpd-0.5/COPYING GNU Lesser General Public License --------------------------------- mptcpd-0.5/LICENSES/COPYING.GPL The versions don't match either. The original project (?) features 0.95: http://multipath-tcp.org/pmwiki.php?n=Main.Release95 The Intel project features 0.5: https://github.com/intel/mptcpd/releases/tag/v0.5 Could it be that the Source0 field is wrong? > BuildRequires: libtool > BuildRequires: automake > BuildRequires: autoconf > BuildRequires: autoconf-archive > BuildRequires: libell-devel > BuildRequires: systemd-units Missing BuildRequires on gcc and/or gcc-c++ or clang > Source0: https://github.com/intel/mptcpd/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz It's possible to get a fully named tarball via a slightly different URL: > https://github.com/intel/mptcpd/archive/v0.5/mptcpd-0.5.tar.gz That way you don't have to alias :). However, see earlier comment about sources. > %install > install -d %{buildroot}/%{_libexecdir} > install -d %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man8 > install -d %{buildroot}/%{_sysconfdir}/%{name} > make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install Double check, but I think above is the default behavior of the %make_install macro so it can be used instead. > find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';' > %ldconfig_scriptlets %ldconfig_scriplets are no longer necessary I believe. However, the hooks for systemd units are missing. Described here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets > %package devel > Summary: MPTCP path manager header files > Group: Development/Libraries > Requires: pkgconfig > License: GPL The -devel subpackage should typically have a versioned Requires on the main package like so: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > %{_libdir}/libmptcpd.* > %{_libdir}/mptcpd/*.so Are the SO files in %{_libdir}/mptcpd/ internal to the package? They don't need to be versioned, correct? > %{_libexecdir}/%{name} > %{_unitdir}/mptcp.service The %{_unitdir} macro requires BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros Full review below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - 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 - 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 mptcpd 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License (v2.0)". 78 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/mptcpd/mptcpd/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Review: No yet. See earlier comments about the -devel subpackage Requires. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/mptcpd, /usr/include/mptcpd Review: Own these directories. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd, /usr/lib64/mptcpd, /usr/include/mptcpd, /usr/lib/systemd/system [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. [x]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mptcpd- devel [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Review: Original sources are unclear. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [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. Review: "bare" (non-macro) "make install" calls require the "-p" flag. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: mptcpd-0.5-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm mptcpd-devel-0.5-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm mptcpd-debuginfo-0.5-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm mptcpd-debugsource-0.5-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm mptcpd-0.5-1.fc34.src.rpm mptcpd.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libell mptcpd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multipath -> Multiparty mptcpd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multipath -> multiparty mptcpd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netlink -> net link, net-link, linnet mptcpd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subflows -> sub flows, sub-flows, sunflowers mptcpd.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:0.5-1 ['1:0.5-1.fc34', '1:0.5-1'] mptcpd.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL mptcpd.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libmptcpd.so mptcpd-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on mptcpd/mptcpd-libs/libmptcpd mptcpd-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL mptcpd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL mptcpd-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL mptcpd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multipath -> Multiparty mptcpd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multipath -> multiparty mptcpd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netlink -> net link, net-link, linnet mptcpd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subflows -> sub flows, sub-flows, sunflowers mptcpd.src: W: invalid-license GPL mptcpd.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %doc 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 17 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mptcpd-debuginfo-0.5-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm mptcpd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name mptcpd-devel (none): E: no installed packages by name mptcpd (none): E: no installed packages by name mptcpd-debugsource (none): E: no installed packages by name mptcpd-debuginfo 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- mptcpd: /usr/lib64/libmptcpd.so mptcpd: /usr/lib64/mptcpd/sspi.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/intel/mptcpd/archive/v0.5.tar.gz#/mptcpd-0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e939470f41d5f8e3d862f736c2b6a618f8ee8ba1415bd80ab85d160f606c70ce CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e939470f41d5f8e3d862f736c2b6a618f8ee8ba1415bd80ab85d160f606c70ce Requires -------- mptcpd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(mptcpd) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libell libell.so.0()(64bit) libell.so.0(ELL_0.10)(64bit) libmptcpd.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) mptcpd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libmptcpd.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig pkgconfig(ell) mptcpd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mptcpd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mptcpd: config(mptcpd) libmptcpd.so.0()(64bit) mptcpd mptcpd(x86-64) mptcpd-devel: mptcpd-devel mptcpd-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(mptcpd) mptcpd-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) mptcpd-debuginfo mptcpd-debuginfo(x86-64) mptcpd-debugsource: mptcpd-debugsource mptcpd-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
