https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2021459 Diego Herrera <dherrera@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(a.alvarezayllon@g | |mail.com) --- Comment #10 from Diego Herrera <dherrera@xxxxxxxxxx> --- The package works when installed, but it can't get accepted as it has the following problems: * There are 2 bundled libraries, those should get packaged and depended on [0]. * The "onnx" library must get packaged in it's own package. NEEDSWORK * The SafeInt library must get packaged in it's own package. Since it's a header library, it should be treated as a static library [1]. NEEDSWORK * The previous point also implies that the package doesn't provide all the required License files on installation [2]. * This will resolve itself by packaging the libraries with their correct licenses. * The license list in the spec file mentions optional-lite, but that dependency is not bundled. It seems that it was removed from the dependencies for this package version [3][4]. NEEDSWORK * The resulting libraries have the Rpath set [5]. NEEDSWORK * Licenses should be listed with their SPDX identifier [6]. NEEDSWORK At the very least those 2 libraries should be in Fedora before continuing the review process. In the case of SafeInt, I'm already preparing a separate package to submit, if you need help with the onnx one, I can pitch in too. [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field [3] https://github.com/microsoft/onnxruntime/pull/9424 [4] https://github.com/microsoft/onnxruntime/pull/9534 [5] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_beware_of_rpath [6] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names ---- review.txt ---- This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text 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. [!]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output [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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "Public domain BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License Apache License 2.0", "Public domain MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "MIT License [generated file]", "Mozilla Public License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License BSD 2-Clause License", "MIT License BSD 3-Clause License", "Microsoft Public License". 6486 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dherrera/src/reviews/onnxruntime/review- onnxruntime/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 245760 bytes in 1 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 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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4628480 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: onnxruntime-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm onnxruntime-devel-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm onnxruntime-doc-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm onnxruntime-debuginfo-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm onnxruntime-debugsource-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm onnxruntime-1.12.1-1.fc38.src.rpm ================================================================================================================ rpmlint session starts =============================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpzlm1e_lb')] checks: 32, packages: 6 onnxruntime-doc.x86_64: E: unused-rpmlintrc-filter "unknown-key" onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libonnxruntime.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug onnxruntime.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1 onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libonnxruntime.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation onnxruntime-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation onnxruntime-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation onnxruntime-doc.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 402696 onnxruntime-doc.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/onnxruntime/images/ONNX_Runtime_logo_dark.png /usr/share/doc/onnxruntime/images/ONNX_Runtime_logo.png onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f0/72d6d79eec0f35de9657dc897e996c28bc74b7 ../../../.build-id/f0/72d6d79eec0f35de9657dc897e996c28bc74b7 onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f5/146303fc03ef2956de4b29d59c0a75123f822b ../../../.build-id/f5/146303fc03ef2956de4b29d59c0a75123f822b onnxruntime.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libonnxruntime.so.1.12.1 $ORIGIN onnxruntime.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1 $ORIGIN ================================================================================ 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 8 warnings, 7 badness; has taken 14.9 s ================================================================================ Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: onnxruntime-debuginfo-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ================================================================================================================ rpmlint session starts =============================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpty6a2xrq')] checks: 32, packages: 1 onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: E: unused-rpmlintrc-filter "unknown-key" onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libonnxruntime.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libonnxruntime.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f0/72d6d79eec0f35de9657dc897e996c28bc74b7 ../../../.build-id/f0/72d6d79eec0f35de9657dc897e996c28bc74b7 onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f5/146303fc03ef2956de4b29d59c0a75123f822b ../../../.build-id/f5/146303fc03ef2956de4b29d59c0a75123f822b ================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 11.7 s ================================================================================ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 5 onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libonnxruntime.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug onnxruntime.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1 onnxruntime-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation onnxruntime-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libonnxruntime.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libonnxruntime.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug' onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug' onnxruntime-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL 2.0 onnxruntime-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license Boost onnxruntime-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD onnxruntime-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL 2.0 onnxruntime-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license Boost onnxruntime-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD onnxruntime-doc.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL 2.0 onnxruntime-doc.x86_64: W: invalid-license Boost onnxruntime-doc.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL 2.0 onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Boost onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD onnxruntime.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL 2.0 onnxruntime.x86_64: W: invalid-license Boost onnxruntime.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD onnxruntime-doc.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 402696 onnxruntime-doc.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/onnxruntime/images/ONNX_Runtime_logo_dark.png /usr/share/doc/onnxruntime/images/ONNX_Runtime_logo.png onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f0/72d6d79eec0f35de9657dc897e996c28bc74b7 ../../../.build-id/f0/72d6d79eec0f35de9657dc897e996c28bc74b7 onnxruntime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f5/146303fc03ef2956de4b29d59c0a75123f822b ../../../.build-id/f5/146303fc03ef2956de4b29d59c0a75123f822b onnxruntime.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libonnxruntime.so.1.12.1 $ORIGIN onnxruntime.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1 $ORIGIN 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 23 warnings, 6 badness; has taken 9.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dcleblanc/SafeInt/archive/3.0.26/SafeInt-3.0.26.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 62fef99873ad975ddd8356923b3d51ed316209c1a05ac85814219373a13ae4d5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 62fef99873ad975ddd8356923b3d51ed316209c1a05ac85814219373a13ae4d5 https://github.com/onnx/onnx/archive/v1.12.0/onnx-1.12.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 052ad3d5dad358a33606e0fc89483f8150bb0655c99b12a43aa58b5b7f0cc507 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 052ad3d5dad358a33606e0fc89483f8150bb0655c99b12a43aa58b5b7f0cc507 https://github.com/microsoft/onnxruntime/archive/v1.12.1/onnxruntime-1.12.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 302e5a0f368c7d048a9acd1227ac226148ed9c944f8b67d1077ca1b3bb3dcc5b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 302e5a0f368c7d048a9acd1227ac226148ed9c944f8b67d1077ca1b3bb3dcc5b Requires -------- onnxruntime (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libprotobuf-lite.so.30()(64bit) libre2.so.9()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) onnxruntime-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libonnxruntime.so.1.12.1()(64bit) libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1()(64bit) onnxruntime(x86-64) onnxruntime-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): onnxruntime-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): onnxruntime-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- onnxruntime: libonnxruntime.so.1.12.1()(64bit) libonnxruntime.so.1.12.1(VERS_1.12.1)(64bit) libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1()(64bit) libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1(VERS_1.0)(64bit) onnxruntime onnxruntime(x86-64) onnxruntime-devel: onnxruntime-devel onnxruntime-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libonnxruntime) onnxruntime-doc: onnxruntime-doc onnxruntime-doc(x86-64) onnxruntime-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libonnxruntime.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libonnxruntime_providers_shared.so.1.12.1-1.12.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) onnxruntime-debuginfo onnxruntime-debuginfo(x86-64) onnxruntime-debugsource: onnxruntime-debugsource onnxruntime-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n onnxruntime Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl, R, PHP, Haskell 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2021459 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
