https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826439
--- Comment #9 from Honggang LI <honli(a)redhat.com> ---
1 Package Review
2 ==============
3
4 Legend:
5 [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
6 [ ] = Manual review needed
7
8
9 Issues:
10 =======
11 - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
12 Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
13 See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
14 guidelines/#_devel_packages
That's OK, as the libvma-9.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libvma.so file is
used as PRE_LOAD.
So, it should be included in the main sub-package.
15 - Package does not use a name that already exists.
16 Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
17
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libvma
18 See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
19 guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
It's OK, as we are import libvma again for fedora. See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826439#c3 .
20
21
22 ===== MUST items =====
23
24 C/C++:
25 [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
PASS
26 [ ]: Package contains no static executables.
PASS
27 [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
28 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
29 [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
30 [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
31 [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
32 [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
33
34 Generic:
35 [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets
36 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of
Packaging
37 Guidelines.
PASS
38 [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
39 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
40 found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD (unspecified) GPL
(v2)", "BSD
41 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GPL (v3
or later)", "BSD
42 2-clause "Simplified" License GPL (v2)", "Expat
License". 113
files
43 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
44 /home/honli/fedora/libvma/1826439-libvma/licensecheck.txt
PASS
45 [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
PASS.
46 [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
47 must be documented in the spec.
PASS
48 [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
PASS
49 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/libvma,
/usr/include/mellanox
Please fix this. /usr/share/doc/libvma should be owned by sub-package "libvma".
/usr/include/mellanox should be owned by sub-package "libvma-devel".
50 [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
51 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/security/limits.d,
52 /etc/security, /usr/include/mellanox, /usr/share/doc/libvma
PASS. The first two directories are co-owned. The last two are duplicated of
line 49.
53 [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
PASS
54 [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
PASS
55 [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
PASS
56 [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
PASS
57 [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
PASS. Not GUI application.
58 [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
PASS
59 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
PASS
60 [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
61 names).
Except the doc dir. Others looks good.
62 [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
PASS
63 [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
PASS
64 [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
PASS
65 [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes
and
66 Provides are present.
PASS
67 [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
PASS
68 [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
PASS
69 [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
PASS. Yes, it does.
70 [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
PASS
71 [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
PASS, see inline comments in spec file.
72 [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be
size
73 (~1MB) or number of files.
74 Note: Documentation size is 184320 bytes in 3 files.
PASS
75 [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
PASS
76 [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least
77 one supported primary architecture.
78 [x]: Package installs properly.
79 [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
80 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
81 [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
82 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the
83 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
84 [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
85 [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
86 [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at
the
87 beginning of %install.
88 [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
89 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
90 [x]: Dist tag is present.
91 [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
92 [x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
93 [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
94 [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
doesn't
95 work.
96 [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
97 [x]: No %config files under /usr.
98 [x]: Package is not relocatable.
99 [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
100 provided in the spec URL.
101 [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
102 %{name}.spec.
103 [x]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
104 systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
105 Note: Systemd service file(s) in libvma
106 [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
107 [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
108
109 ===== SHOULD items =====
110
111 Generic:
112 [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate
113 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include
it.
PASS
114 [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
PASS
115 [ ]: Package functions as described.
PASS. See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826439#c8
116 [ ]: Latest version is packaged.
PASS
117 [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
PASS
118 [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
119 publishes signatures.
120 Note: gpgverify is not used.
PASS. NO GPG.
121 [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
122 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
PASS
123 [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
PASS
124 [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
125 files.
PASS
126 [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
127 [x]: Buildroot is not present
128 [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
129 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
130 [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
131 [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
132 [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec
file
133 [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
134 [x]: SourceX is a working URL.
135 [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
136 architectures.
137 [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
138
139 ===== EXTRA items =====
140
141 Generic:
142 [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
143 Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
144 See:
https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
Please fix this.
145 [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
146 Note: No rpmlint messages.
147 [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
148 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
149 [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if
package
150 is arched.
151 [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
152
153
154 Rpmlint
155 -------
156 Checking: libvma-9.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
157 libvma-devel-9.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
158 libvma-utils-9.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
159 libvma-debuginfo-9.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
160 libvma-debugsource-9.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
161 libvma-9.0.2-1.fc33.src.rpm
162 libvma.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2
exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
163 libvma.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libvma.so
164 libvma.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2
165 libvma.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2
line 164 and 165 are false positive.
166 libvma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vma
167 libvma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vmad
should be fixed.
168 libvma-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
169 libvma-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vma -> ma,
via, v ma
170 libvma-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation
171 libvma-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vma_stats
should be fixed.
172 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings.
173
174
175
176
177 Rpmlint (debuginfo)
178 -------------------
179 Checking: libvma-debuginfo-9.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
180 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
181
182
183
184
185
186 Rpmlint (installed packages)
187 ----------------------------
188 libvma-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service
not known>
189 libvma.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
190 libvma.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2 /lib64/librt.so.1
191 libvma.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2 /lib64/libm.so.6
192 libvma.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2
exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
193 libvma.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libvma.so
194 libvma.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2
195 libvma.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libvma.so.9.0.2
196 libvma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vma
197 libvma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vmad
198 libvma-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service
not known>
199 libvma-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vma -> ma,
via, v ma
200 libvma-utils.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service
not known>
201 libvma-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation
202 libvma-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vma_stats
203 libvma-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service
not known>
204 libvma-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
205 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 15 warnings.
duplicated error report.
206
207
208
209 Unversioned so-files
210 --------------------
211 libvma: /usr/lib64/libvma.so
212
213 Source checksums
214 ----------------
215
https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma/archive/9.0.2/libvma-9.0.2.tar.gz :
216 CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
1f273c309f553bd479da229a39b93d53fcf3fdda9b8eae2df973f6b8d02aa164
217 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
1f273c309f553bd479da229a39b93d53fcf3fdda9b8eae2df973f6b8d02aa164
218
219
220 Requires
221 --------
222 libvma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
223 /bin/sh
224 /usr/bin/bash
225 config(libvma)
226 ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
227 libc.so.6()(64bit)
228 libdl.so.2()(64bit)
229 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
230 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
231 libibverbs.so.1()(64bit)
232 libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.0)(64bit)
233 libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.1)(64bit)
234 libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.8)(64bit)
235 libm.so.6()(64bit)
236 libmlx5.so.1()(64bit)
237 libmlx5.so.1(MLX5_1.2)(64bit)
238 libmlx5.so.1(MLX5_1.4)(64bit)
239 libnl-3.so.200()(64bit)
240 libnl-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit)
241 libnl-route-3.so.200()(64bit)
242 libnl-route-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit)
243 libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
244 librdmacm.so.1()(64bit)
245 librdmacm.so.1(RDMACM_1.0)(64bit)
246 librt.so.1()(64bit)
247 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
248 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
249 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
250 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
251 libvma.so.9()(64bit)
252 rtld(GNU_HASH)
253
254 libvma-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
255 libvma(x86-64)
256
257 libvma-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
258 libc.so.6()(64bit)
259 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
260 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
261 libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
262 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
263 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
264 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
265 libvma(x86-64)
266 rtld(GNU_HASH)
267
268 libvma-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
269
270 libvma-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
271
272
273
274 Provides
275 --------
276 libvma:
277 config(libvma)
278 libvma
279 libvma(x86-64)
280 libvma.so.9()(64bit)
281
282 libvma-devel:
283 libvma-devel
284 libvma-devel(x86-64)
285
286 libvma-utils:
287 libvma-utils
288 libvma-utils(x86-64)
289
290 libvma-debuginfo:
291 debuginfo(build-id)
292 libvma-debuginfo
293 libvma-debuginfo(x86-64)
294
295 libvma-debugsource:
296 libvma-debugsource
297 libvma-debugsource(x86-64)
298
299
300
301 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
302 ------------------------------
303 AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libvma-9.0.2/configure.ac:107
Please fix this.
304
305
306 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
307 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1826439
308 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
309 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
310 Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Perl,
Java, R, Python, Ruby
311 Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks
--
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