Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653

--- Comment #2 from Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru --- rpmlint output

$ rpmlint NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6-1.fc18.src.rpm NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm NetworkManager-l2tp-debuginfo-0.9.6-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm NetworkManager-l2tp.src:94: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} NetworkManager-l2tp.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} NetworkManager-l2tp.src:51: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 51) NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6/ChangeLog NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/nm-l2tp-service.conf NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/NetworkManager/VPN/nm-l2tp-service.name 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653

--- Comment #3 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org --- Hi Ivan.

There's still a bit of work needed for this package, so I'm not approving it at the moment.

I summed up all the issues below, so you wouldn't have to hunt them down one by one in the (long) output of fedora-review.

Most of the problems should be pretty quick to fix though, and after that the package should be good to go. :)

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

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

Summary of issues (details below) : ===================================

[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. - The package drops a files in the following directory: /usr/share/gnome-vpn-properties/

=> Add a requirement on nm-connection-editor

[!]: If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake.

=> Please notify upstream of the problem. => You might want to consider adding the file yourself if upstream doesn't add it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

- The following files are licensed under the LGPLv2+ auth-dialog/vpn-password-dialog.c auth-dialog/vpn-password-dialog.h

=> License tag should read: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+

[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). - Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

=> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.

=> See above for the /usr/share/gnome-vpn-properties/ folder

[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). - I'm not sure about this one, but the package provides the following: libnm-l2tp-properties.so()(64bit) nm-l2tp-pppd-plugin.so()(64bit)

=> These seem to be plugins for NetworkManager, shouldn't the Provides be filtered out?

[!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. - There are scriptlets to update the desktop-database and the icon-cache, but no corresponding files are installed. (in fact, they are commented out of the %files section)

=> If these files really shouldn't be installed, then remove the scriptlets.

[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.

=> You can fix that by running install as follows: make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="/usr/bin/install -p"

[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. - Note: %define nm_version 1:0.9.2 %define dbus_version 1.1 %define gtk3_version 3.0 %define ppp_version 2.4.5 %define shared_mime_version 0.16-3

=> Replace all %define by %global

[!] Rpmlint is silent (or as silent as reasonable) - NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6/ChangeLog

=> You could remove this file, to please rpmlint.

- NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/nm-l2tp-service.conf

=> This should be marked as %config, probably even %config(noreplace)

- NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/NetworkManager/VPN/nm-l2tp-service.name

=> Ignore, this file is in /etc but IMHO they is not a config file.

- NetworkManager-l2tp.src:94: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} - NetworkManager-l2tp.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}

=> Instead of commenting them, maybe remove these two files?

- NetworkManager-l2tp.src:51: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 51)

=> Not extremely important, but would be nice to fix. :)

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

C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. - The package drops a files in the following directory: /usr/share/gnome-vpn-properties/

=> Add a requirement on nm-connection-editor

[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake.

=> Please notify upstream of the problem. => You might want to consider adding the file yourself if upstream doesn't add it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. - The following files are licensed under the LGPLv2+ auth-dialog/vpn-password-dialog.c auth-dialog/vpn-password-dialog.h

=> License tag should read: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+

[x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. - See above for the /usr/share/gnome-vpn-properties/ folder

[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [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. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). - I'm not sure about this one, but the package provides the following: libnm-l2tp-properties.so()(64bit) nm-l2tp-pppd-plugin.so()(64bit)

=> These seem to be plugins for NetworkManager, shouldn't the Provides be filtered out?

[?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. - There are scriptlets to update the desktop-database and the icon-cache, but no corresponding files are installed. (in fact, they are commented out of the %files section)

[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.

=> You can fix that by running install as follows: make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="/usr/bin/install -p"

[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define nm_version 1:0.9.2 %define dbus_version 1.1 %define gtk3_version 3.0 %define ppp_version 2.4.5 %define shared_mime_version 0.16-3

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

Generic: [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. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm NetworkManager-l2tp-debuginfo-0.9.6-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6-1.fc19.src.rpm NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6/ChangeLog

=> You could remove this file, to please rpmlint.

NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/nm-l2tp-service.conf

=> This should be marked as %config, probably even %config(noreplace)

NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/NetworkManager/VPN/nm-l2tp-service.name

=> Ignore, this file is in /etc but IMHO they is not a config file.

NetworkManager-l2tp.src:94: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} NetworkManager-l2tp.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}

=> Instead of commented them, maybe remove these two files?

NetworkManager-l2tp.src:51: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 51)

=> Not extremely important, but would be nice to fix. :)

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint NetworkManager-l2tp NetworkManager-l2tp-debuginfo NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6/ChangeLog NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/nm-l2tp-service.conf NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/NetworkManager/VPN/nm-l2tp-service.name 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'

=> Same as above.

Requires -------- NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

/bin/sh NetworkManager >= 1:0.9.2 dbus >= 1.1 desktop-file-utils gnome-keyring libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) libdbus-glib-1.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgnome-keyring.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libnm-glib-vpn.so.1()(64bit) libnm-glib.so.4()(64bit) libnm-util.so.2()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) ppp = 2.4.5 pptp rtld(GNU_HASH) shared-mime-info >= 0.16-3 xl2tpd

NetworkManager-l2tp-debuginfo-0.9.6-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm:

NetworkManager-l2tp = 0.9.6-1.fc19 NetworkManager-l2tp(x86-64) = 0.9.6-1.fc19 libnm-l2tp-properties.so()(64bit) nm-l2tp-pppd-plugin.so()(64bit)

NetworkManager-l2tp-debuginfo-0.9.6-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm:

NetworkManager-l2tp-debuginfo = 0.9.6-1.fc19 NetworkManager-l2tp-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.9.6-1.fc19

Unversioned so-files -------------------- NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/NetworkManager/libnm-l2tp-properties.so NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/pppd/2.4.5/nm-l2tp-pppd-plugin.so

MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/seriyps/NetworkManager-l2tp/archive/0.9.6/NetworkManager-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ff71cf0220b07de7ed7cd8bf0c20ef21b9e361dd4a993d161883a1da8babdc14 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ff71cf0220b07de7ed7cd8bf0c20ef21b9e361dd4a993d161883a1da8babdc14

Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 878653

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653

--- Comment #5 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to comment #4)

This errors came from NetworkManager-pptp package. Do I should to inform the NetworkManager-pptp maintainer about it?

If the NetworkManager-pptp package has some packaging errors, it could certainly be fixed, yes.

But that's a completely separated issue from this review request.

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653

--- Comment #7 from Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru ---

[!]: If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake.

=> Please notify upstream of the problem.

https://github.com/seriyps/NetworkManager-l2tp/issues/4

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653

Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #9 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org --- First, taking the issues I had raised before.

[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [!]: If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake.

=> Upstream has been notified, and the next release will include it, so this will do.

[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires).

=> As I said I wasn't sure about this, but I see you filtered the provides out, so I trust you figured this was the right thing to do.

[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. [x] Rpmlint is silent (or as silent as reasonable)

The only other difference I see in the spec file is this:

-%if 0%{?fedora} > 16 BuildRequires: libgnome-keyring-devel -%else -BuildRequires: gnome-keyring-devel -%endif

=> I hadn't seen that the first time, but this is a good change as F16 is EOL soon anyway.

This new package fixes all issues I had found, and doesn't introduce any new one, so I'm approving it.

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653

--- Comment #11 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to comment #10)

Branches: f17 f18 el6

The el6 is not going to work because you removed this:

-%if 0%{?fedora} > 16 BuildRequires: libgnome-keyring-devel -%else -BuildRequires: gnome-keyring-devel -%endif

You should add these lines back if you intend to have the package build on el6.

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653

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

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6-2.fc17

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

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

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-12-10 20:25:34

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653

--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653

--- Comment #20 from Maurice James midnightsteel@msn.com --- uname -a Linux charon.tierre.net 3.6.7-4.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Nov 20 19:40:01 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux