https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172534

Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |asn@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172534

Michael Adam madam@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |madam@redhat.com Assignee|jhrozek@redhat.com |madam@redhat.com

--- Comment #2 from Michael Adam madam@redhat.com --- I started to do the review. Will post an update shorty.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172534

--- Comment #4 from Michael Adam madam@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============

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

Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages ---> OK: this whole package is for development, hence no separate devel package - License of files not uniform: most BSD, one GPLv3+, one without license ---> TODO: fix upstream? - Problem with owning {_libdir}/cmake,pkgconfig directories: ---> Proposal for added Requires and changed files. - Changelog has format error. ---> Fix provided. - Language error in %description: ---> "lookup the address ... via" ---> "look the address ... up via"

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

C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. ---> manual check [x]: Package contains no static executables. ---> manual check (no executables at all) [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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. ---> ok: BSD [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/obnox/1172534-resolv_wrapper/licensecheck.txt ---> TODO: fix upstream? [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake ---> "Require: cmake" [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/pkgconfig(socket_wrapper, nss_wrapper, pkgconfig, uid_wrapper) ---> don't own pgkconfig dir and +"Require: pkgconfig" [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ---> the %cmake expands... [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. ---> what precisely is this? [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. ---> no dash between date and author [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. ---> ok [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package ---> the whole package is for development [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. ---> adaptions proposed due to issue with directories [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> except for the issues listed [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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: resolv_wrapper : /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/resolv_wrapper.pc ---> ok: the package itself is for development [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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. ---> built only on x86_64 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [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: resolv_wrapper-1.1.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm resolv_wrapper-1.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm resolv_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dns -> dens, dins, dons resolv_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookup -> lockup, hookup, look up

--> "lookup the address ... via" ---> "look the address ... up via"

resolv_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resolv -> resolve, resole, resold resolv_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel resolv_wrapper.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libresolv_wrapper.so.0.0.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 resolv_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libresolv_wrapper.so resolv_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/resolv_wrapper.pc resolv_wrapper.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dns -> dens, dins, dons resolv_wrapper.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookup -> lockup, hookup, look up resolv_wrapper.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resolv -> resolve, resole, resold resolv_wrapper.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@sphere /]# rpmlint resolv_wrapper resolv_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dns -> dens, dins, dons resolv_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookup -> lockup, hookup, look up resolv_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resolv -> resolve, resole, resold resolv_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel resolv_wrapper.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libresolv_wrapper.so.0.0.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 resolv_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libresolv_wrapper.so resolv_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/resolv_wrapper.pc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@sphere /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires -------- resolv_wrapper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig /usr/bin/pkg-config libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) libresolv_wrapper.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

Provides -------- resolv_wrapper: libresolv_wrapper.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(resolv_wrapper) resolv_wrapper resolv_wrapper(x86-64)

Unversioned so-files -------------------- resolv_wrapper: /usr/lib64/libresolv_wrapper.so

Source checksums ---------------- https://ftp.samba.org/pub/cwrap/resolv_wrapper-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 02a9b367e2fb11530a65ccde03f38522ad61bbbd530365e641e8dd170934590f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 02a9b367e2fb11530a65ccde03f38522ad61bbbd530365e641e8dd170934590f

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1172534 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172534

Michael Adam madam@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #969295|,jk |licensecheck.txt description| |

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172534

--- Comment #7 from Michael Adam madam@redhat.com --- Created attachment 969297 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=969297&action=edit ldk

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172534

--- Comment #8 from Michael Adam madam@redhat.com --- Created attachment 969298 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=969298&action=edit patch for spec file

Diff of proposed patch to specfile. Corresponding changes to socket|uid|nss_wrapper are in preparation.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172534

--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Package updated:

Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/resolv_wrapper/resolv_wrapper.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/resolv_wrapper/resolv_wrapper-1.1.0-2.fc21.src...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172534

Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #12 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: resolv_wrapper Short Description: A wrapper for dns name resolving or dns faking Upstream URL: http://cwrap.org/resolv_wrapper.html Owners: asn jhrozek obnox Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172534

--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172534

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- resolv_wrapper-1.1.0-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/resolv_wrapper-1.1.0-2.fc21

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172534

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- resolv_wrapper-1.1.0-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172534

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|resolv_wrapper-1.1.0-2.fc20 |resolv_wrapper-1.1.0-2.fc21

--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- resolv_wrapper-1.1.0-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.