https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333529
--- Comment #27 from Honggang LI <ho...@redhat.com> --- Fedora review result of spec and tarball, which had been upload to http://people.redhat.com/honli/opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1-review/ NOTE: The fedora-review tool of fedora-rawhide distro always failed. So, I run fedora-review with fedora-29 distro. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: opa-fm-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/opa- <deleted many lines> honli: OK, opa-fm-debugsource should include all source files, which include the header files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: BUILDSTDERR: warning: File listed twice: /etc/opa-fm/opafm.xml honli: OK, confirmed there are two copies of opafm.xml in different directories. opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm]$ find | grep opafm.xml ./etc/opa-fm/opafm.xml ./usr/share/opa-fm/opafm.xml - 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: gcc gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 honli: OK, as gcc/gcc-c++ is no longer the default compiler for fedora rpm building system. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. honli: OK, no kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. honli: OK, no static executables. review-opa-fm]$ find rpms-unpacked/opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm/ -type f | xargs file | grep static | wc 0 0 0 [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. honli: OK, see the BSD LICENSE file in top directory. [ ]: 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License GNU General Public License (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 123 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/hli/review/review-opa-fm/licensecheck.txt honli: OK, see the BSD LICENSE file in top directory. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. honli: OK review-opa-fm]$ rpm -qpl results/opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm | grep -i license /usr/share/licenses/opa-fm /usr/share/licenses/opa-fm/LICENSE [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build- (libwayland-server, vim-common, python3-tornado, qt5-qtdeclarative, honli: OK, saft to ignore this. kf5-kiconthemes, lksctp-tools, python2-gssapi, python3-libdnf, cantor, evolution, pulseaudio-module-bluetooth, hdf5, SuperLU, alliance-libs, kdelibs3, pipewire, python36, libnl3-cli, binutils) [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. honli: OK, default fedora comiler flags used after we removed the hardcode compiler flags. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. honli: OK, no bundled libraries. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. honli: OK [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. honli: OK [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. honli: OK, as not a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package honli: OK, no development files. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. honli: OK, only a README in %doc [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). honli: OK [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. honli: OK [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. honli: OK [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. honli: OK [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. honli: OK, it is a new package. It is not a rename. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. honli: OK [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. honli: OK [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. honli: OK, systemd service files included. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. honli: OK [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. honli: OK. Use ExclusiveArch as it x64 only package. [ ]: 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. honli: OK [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines honli: OK [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 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]: 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]: 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: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. honli: OK, see the LICENSE file in top directory of source code [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). honli:OK [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in opa-fm- debuginfo , opa-fm-debugsource honli: OK [ ]: Package functions as described. honli: OK [ ]: Latest version is packaged. honli: OK, yes, source tarball was generated from latest upstream repo. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. honli: OK, the license file from upstream repo. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. honli: OK, manpage-format.patch removes undefined manpage macro. This dummy patch should be applied in upstream repo. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. honli: OK [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. honli: OK, no %check, as opa-fm needs specific hardware to run. Most building systems unlikely has OPA hardware. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. honli: OK [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm opa-fm-debuginfo-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm opa-fm-debugsource-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.src.rpm opa-fm.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhfi1 honli: OK, libhfi1 is the userspace driver, without it opa-fm will fail to start. opa-fm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opafmconfigpp opa-fm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opafmvf honli: OK, will notify upstream to create manpages for those two tools. opa-fm.src:64: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/opa-fm honli: OK opa-fm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: opa-fm-10.9.1.1.tar.gz honli: OK, tarball was generated from upstream repo. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: opa-fm-debuginfo-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.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 honli: OK, /usr/bin/python is only used in building opa-fm. No python scripts in the opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm opa-fm.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhfi1 opa-fm.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/intel/opa-fm <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> opa-fm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opafmconfigpp opa-fm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opafmvf honli: OK, duplicated warning, see previous comments. opa-fm-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/intel/opa-fm <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> opa-fm-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/intel/opa-fm <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> honli: OK, https://github.com/intel/opa-fm is valid. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- opa-fm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/sh config(opa-fm) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libhfi1 libibumad.so.3()(64bit) libibumad.so.3(IBUMAD_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1()(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.1)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd opa-fm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): opa-fm-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- opa-fm: config(opa-fm) opa-fm opa-fm(x86-64) opa-fm-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) opa-fm-debuginfo opa-fm-debuginfo(x86-64) opa-fm-debugsource: opa-fm-debugsource opa-fm-debugsource(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- Using local file /home/hli/review/opa-fm-10.9.1.1.tar.gz as upstream file:///home/hli/review/opa-fm-10.9.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9a88f8794346f56e20b03897dd1cc9dd0660c08bb4d880580f25cbb6f20f3989 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9a88f8794346f56e20b03897dd1cc9dd0660c08bb4d880580f25cbb6f20f3989 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n opa-fm Buildroot used: fedora-29-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
