https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374948

Michal Ruprich <mrupr...@redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |needinfo-



--- Comment #4 from Michal Ruprich <mrupr...@redhat.com> ---
Ok I found a note about emulators and the only way to include this would be to
provide licenses to the mips microcode as you mentioned at the beginning. I did
the review at least on everything that was possible but you should pay
attention to the "Package functions as described" part. I commented on that so
if I am wrong about this don't hesitate to correct me.

If you could provide a link to the review request you posted last time (the one
that got rejected) it might give me some more insight on the emulator issue. 

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: make gcc
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

    ##Consider removing these dependencies, both are required by default thus
no reason to explicitly require them here

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: 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:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.

    ##Described below

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 309 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/mruprich/devel/rev/dynamips/1374948-dynamips/licensecheck.txt

    ##1. All the files need to be licensed under the same license that is
specified in the spec file
         Either add the license(s) into each file or create a separate file and
add %license pointing to this file in the spec file
    ##2. I am not able to include this in Fedora until the binary blob is
permitted by owner and licensed under Fedora permissible license

[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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 143360 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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.

    ##Mentioned above

[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     dynamips-debuginfo
[!]: Package functions as described.

    ##From my point of view I am unable to test this - I would need a working
cisco router iso image and those are proprietary and not available

[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.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

    ##Add the check section if possible

[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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: dynamips-0.2.16-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          dynamips-debuginfo-0.2.16-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          dynamips-0.2.16-1.fc24.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: dynamips-debuginfo-0.2.16-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
dynamips (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libelf.so.1()(64bit)
    libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.0)(64bit)
    libnsl.so.1()(64bit)
    libpcap.so.1()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    librt.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

dynamips-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
dynamips:
    dynamips
    dynamips(x86-64)

dynamips-debuginfo:
    dynamips-debuginfo
    dynamips-debuginfo(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/GNS3/dynamips/archive/v0.2.16/dynamips-0.2.16.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
0fcf18d701898a77cb589bd9bad16dde436ac1ccb87516fefe07d09de1a196c0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
0fcf18d701898a77cb589bd9bad16dde436ac1ccb87516fefe07d09de1a196c0


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1374948
Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to