https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955394 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(zheng.ma@xxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #21 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I was hoping to be able to approve this revision, but I think there are still a couple of things that need to be revisited. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - There are some issues around interdependencies among subpackages and license files related to the new -libs subpackage. * The base package is right, I think. Normally, in a library-and-tool package, the base package should depend on the -libs package with an arched and fully-versioned dependency, because the command-line tool would use the shared library at runtime. In this case, the library is statically linked into the tool, which is OK across subpackages in a single source RPM. So since there is no implicit dependency, it’s correct that the base package doesn’t have an explicit dependency on -libs, and that it has the LICENSE files. * The -libs subpackage is correct too (no Requires on other subpackages), but it needs %license LICENSE* added to its %files section too, since it can be installed independently of the base package. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#subpackage-licensing. * The -devel package correctly has Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} and correctly does not have its own copy of the LICENSE file (since the -libs dependency will always provide a copy). However, I think Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} is bogus and should be removed, unless I’m missing some reason that the command-line tool and its man page should be required for compiling applications that link against the library. - ExcludeArch is basically correctly handled. Instead of “Placeholder comment,” you should really have something similar to what you would put in the Bugzilla report. Something like “The purpose of the package is to support hardware that only exists on x86_64 platforms” would be fine. Would ExcludeArch: %{arm} aarch64 %{power64} s390x i686 be more accurately written as an ExclusiveArch? ExclusiveArch: x86_64 (You would still handle it the same way as the ExcludeArch in terms of filing an issue for unsupported architectures.) - The latest changelog entry’s version, 1.0.4-1, does not match the package version 1.0.5-1. - The PDF documentation does not belong in /usr/share/man. That is only for actual man pages. Please put it in %{_pkgdocdir} instead. Since the existing configure/Makefile always installs the man pages and PDF documentation in the same place, you will have to clean up after it. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation for different methods of installing documentation. One reasonable approach would be to add rm -vf %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/*.pdf after “%make_install”, and then change %doc %{_mandir}/QATzip-man.pdf to %doc docs/QATzip-man.pdf in “%files devel”. That will install it as /usr/share/doc/qatzip-devel/QATzip-man.pdf. ===== Notes (no change required) ===== - You could, if you liked, write URL: https://github.com/intel/%{githubname} Source0: https://github.com/intel/%{githubname}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz more concisely as URL: https://github.com/intel/%{githubname} Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz ===== 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]: 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License GNU General Public License, Version 2". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1955394-qatzip/licensecheck.txt GPLv2 license applies only to config_file/, which does not contribute to the build and is intentionally not installed. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Possible to install qatzip-libs alone with no license file. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Version does not match [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. [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. PDF documentation installed in /usr/share/man. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Unless I am missing something, the -devel package should not require the base package, which contains only the command-line tool and its man page. [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. ExcludeArch is basically correctly handled. (Instead of “Placeholder comment,” you should really have something similar to what you would put in the Bugzilla report.) [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as noted) [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). (except already-mentioned dependency of -devel on base package) [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in qatzip- libs [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Package has ExcludeArch [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. A comment properly explains why tests cannot be run. [x]: 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]: 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: qatzip-1.0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm qatzip-libs-1.0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm qatzip-devel-1.0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm qatzip-debuginfo-1.0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm qatzip-debugsource-1.0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm qatzip-1.0.5-1.fc35.src.rpm qatzip.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C QATzip qatzip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip qatzip.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.4-1 ['1.0.5-1.fc35', '1.0.5-1'] qatzip-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation qatzip-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libqatzip -> libation qatzip.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C QATzip qatzip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip qatzip.src:53: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: qatzip-libs-debuginfo-1.0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm qatzip-debuginfo-1.0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/intel/QATzip/archive/v1.0.5/qatzip-1.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 32c4aeac5541fcb6be2940172e5ab0738babf0f768fe808b7ec20c6651423c8b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 32c4aeac5541fcb6be2940172e5ab0738babf0f768fe808b7ec20c6651423c8b Requires -------- qatzip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libqat.so.0()(64bit) libusdm.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) qatzip-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libqat.so.0()(64bit) libusdm.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) qatzip-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): qatzip(x86-64) qatzip-libs(x86-64) qatzip-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): qatzip-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- qatzip: qatzip qatzip(x86-64) qatzip-libs: libqatzip.so.1()(64bit) qatzip-libs qatzip-libs(x86-64) qatzip-devel: qatzip-devel qatzip-devel(x86-64) qatzip-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) qatzip-debuginfo qatzip-debuginfo(x86-64) qatzip-debugsource: qatzip-debugsource qatzip-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1955394 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ruby, R, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, Haskell, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
