Attachment 1270745 Details for Bug 1440780 – review.txt

review.txt

review.txt (text/plain), 9.34 KB, created by Remi Collet on 2017-04-11 11:35:41 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Remi Collet

Created: 2017-04-11 11:35:41 UTC

Size: 9.34 KB

patch

obsolete

>Package Review
>==============
>
>Legend:
>[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
>[ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
>Issues:
>=======
>- Package installs properly.
>  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
>  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
>
>[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
>	Expected, as this module is going to be removed from httpd
>	(package split)
>	=> if possible add Conflicts: httpd < ...
>
>[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
>	Please use 
>		%configure
>		make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1
>
>[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>     beginning of %install.
>     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
>
>[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
>     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
>     Note: %clean present but not required
>
>
>===== MUST items =====
>
>C/C++:
>[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
>[x]: Package contains no static executables.
>[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.
>[x]: 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:
>[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>     found: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
>     generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "FSF All Permissive", "*No
>     copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed
>     output of licensecheck in
>     /home/extras/SPECS/review/1440780-mod_http2/licensecheck.txt
>[x]: 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.
>[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>     beginning of %install.
>     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
>[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.
>[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>     Provides are present.
>[x]: 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 61440 bytes in 4 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]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
>[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]: %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]: 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]: 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:
>[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
>     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
>     Note: %clean present but not required
>[-]: 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).
>[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
>     mod_http2-debuginfo
>[?]: Package functions as described.
>[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.
>[ ]: 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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
>[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:
>[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
>     Note: Mock build failed
>     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
>[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.
>
>
>Installation errors
>-------------------
>INFO: mock.py version 1.3.4 starting (python version = 3.5.3)...
>Start: init plugins
>INFO: selinux enabled
>Finish: init plugins
>Start: run
>Start: chroot init
>INFO: calling preinit hooks
>INFO: enabled root cache
>INFO: enabled dnf cache
>Start: cleaning dnf metadata
>Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
>INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
>Mock Version: 1.3.4
>INFO: Mock Version: 1.3.4
>Finish: chroot init
>INFO: installing package(s): /home/extras/SPECS/review/1440780-mod_http2/results/mod_http2-debuginfo-1.10.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm /home/extras/SPECS/review/1440780-mod_http2/results/mod_http2-1.10.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
>ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
> # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 27 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/extras/SPECS/review/1440780-mod_http2/results/mod_http2-debuginfo-1.10.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm /home/extras/SPECS/review/1440780-mod_http2/results/mod_http2-1.10.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
>
>
>Rpmlint
>-------
>Checking: mod_http2-1.10.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
>          mod_http2-debuginfo-1.10.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
>          mod_http2-1.10.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
>mod_http2.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C module implementing HTTP/2 for Apache 2
>mod_http2.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
>mod_http2.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
>2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>Requires
>--------
>mod_http2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    config(mod_http2)
>    httpd-mmn
>    libc.so.6()(64bit)
>    libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit)
>    libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit)
>    libnghttp2.so.14()(64bit)
>    rtld(GNU_HASH)
>
>mod_http2-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>
>
>
>Provides
>--------
>mod_http2:
>    config(mod_http2)
>    mod_http2
>    mod_http2(x86-64)
>
>mod_http2-debuginfo:
>    mod_http2-debuginfo
>    mod_http2-debuginfo(x86-64)
>
>
>
>Unversioned so-files
>--------------------
>mod_http2: /usr/lib64/httpd/modules/mod_http2.so
>mod_http2: /usr/lib64/httpd/modules/mod_proxy_http2.so
>
>Source checksums
>----------------
>https://github.com/icing/mod_h2/releases/download/v1.10.1/mod_http2-1.10.1.tar.gz :
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4d76220ca0a5752dccbd48eef90e6fee8b95f4e14f4ffc66cc1420e89234f93e
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4d76220ca0a5752dccbd48eef90e6fee8b95f4e14f4ffc66cc1420e89234f93e
>
>
>Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
>Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1440780
>Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 1440780: 1270745