Bug 1029002

A preliminary run of rpmlint shows:
------
Checking: pcllib-1.12-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          pcllib-devel-1.12-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          pcllib-1.12-1.fc21.src.rpm
pcllib.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpcl.so.1.0.11 exit.5
pcllib.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pcllib/COPYING
pcllib-devel.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man3/pcl.3.gz 36: warning: macro `nl' not defined
pcllib-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/pcl.h
pcllib.src:31: W: make-check-outside-check-section # Note that --disable static is not given because make check requires the static libs
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.

To handle:
- Can you comment on the shared-lib-calls-exit? In any case, inform upstream about this in a bugtracker, mailing list or so. 
- incorrect-fsf-address: see [1]
- manual-page-warning:  inform upstream (if possible, file a bug)
- make-check-outside-check-section is basically void, but can probably be silenced by moving the %check before the comment.


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
  Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pcllib-
  devel (missing %{?isa}
- Rpmlint issues as noted in comment #1


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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:
     "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated".
     3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/mk/FedoraReview/1029002-pcllib/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.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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 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:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: 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 pcllib-
     devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: 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]: 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: pcllib-1.12-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          pcllib-devel-1.12-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          pcllib-1.12-1.fc21.src.rpm
pcllib.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpcl.so.1.0.11 exit.5
pcllib.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pcllib/COPYING
pcllib-devel.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man3/pcl.3.gz 36: warning: macro `nl' not defined
pcllib-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/pcl.h
pcllib.src:31: W: make-check-outside-check-section # Note that --disable static is not given because make check requires the static libs
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint pcllib pcllib-devel
pcllib.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpcl.so.1.0.11 exit.5
pcllib.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pcllib/COPYING
pcllib-devel.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man3/pcl.3.gz 36: warning: macro `nl' not defined
pcllib-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/pcl.h
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
pcllib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

pcllib-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libpcl.so.1()(64bit)
    pcllib



Provides
--------
pcllib:
    libpcl.so.1()(64bit)
    pcllib
    pcllib(x86-64)

pcllib-devel:
    pcllib-devel
    pcllib-devel(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
http://xmailserver.org/pcl-1.12.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e7b30546765011575d54ae6b44f9d52f138f5809221270c815d2478273319e1a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e7b30546765011575d54ae6b44f9d52f138f5809221270c815d2478273319e1a


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (928f2b2) last change: 2013-10-14
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1029002
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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

(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #1)
> A preliminary run of rpmlint shows:
> To handle:
> - Can you comment on the shared-lib-calls-exit? In any case, inform upstream
> about this in a bugtracker, mailing list or so. 

In the case of this library where co-routines are implemented, there are fatal errors that cannot be recovered, and these are the cases where this library calls exit(). For example if the context from the co-routine to the main routine cannot be switched the library calls exit (there is not much else it could do).

> - incorrect-fsf-address: see [1]
> - manual-page-warning:  inform upstream (if possible, file a bug)

I'll inform upstream.

(In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #3)
> (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #1)
> > A preliminary run of rpmlint shows:
> > To handle:
> > - Can you comment on the shared-lib-calls-exit? In any case, inform upstream
> > about this in a bugtracker, mailing list or so. 
> 
> In the case of this library where co-routines are implemented, there are
> fatal errors that cannot be recovered, and these are the cases where this
> library calls exit(). For example if the context from the co-routine to the
> main routine cannot be switched the library calls exit (there is not much
> else it could do).
OK, fair enough.

> > - incorrect-fsf-address: see [1]
> > - manual-page-warning:  inform upstream (if possible, file a bug)
> 
> I'll inform upstream.

Please bring links for this (e. g., upstream ticket or mail archive urls) into this ticket.

(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #4)
> > > - incorrect-fsf-address: see [1]
> > > - manual-page-warning:  inform upstream (if possible, file a bug)
> > I'll inform upstream.
> Please bring links for this (e. g., upstream ticket or mail archive urls)
> into this ticket.

I reported it on his personal address as there was no mailing list for the PCL library. He had one for xmail, but while it is related, it is still a different project. I'll send there if there is no reply.

OK, You didn't tell me, but the issues in comment #2 are also fixed. A minor nitpick is that you did not update the changelog while doing this. However, this is definitely no blocker: 

*** Approved

Congrats to your first package! Now, you should make an SCM admin request as described in [1]. You should definitely not bother with the f18 branch, it's too old for this new package. f19 + f20 should be enough (you always get rawhide).


[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: pcllib
Short Description: The Portable Co-routine Library (PCL)
Owners: nmav
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC:

(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #6)
> OK, You didn't tell me, but the issues in comment #2 are also fixed. A minor
> nitpick is that you did not update the changelog while doing this. However,
> this is definitely no blocker: 

Thank you!

Git done (by process-git-requests).

pcllib-1.12-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pcllib-1.12-1.fc19

pcllib-1.12-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pcllib-1.12-1.fc20

pcllib-1.12-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

pcllib-1.12-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

pcllib-1.12-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: pcllib
New Branches: el6 epel7
Owners: nmav

Git done (by process-git-requests).