Bug 1121115
Summary: | Review Request: axmail - UROnode addon - an SMTP mailbox | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jan Synacek <jsynacek> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | jsynacek, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | jsynacek:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | axmail-2.0-1.fc21 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-01-05 13:22:29 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 1120771 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Jaroslav Škarvada
2014-07-18 12:06:58 UTC
Mailx bundling exception ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/447 I updated the spec a bit (minor mods without revision bump). According to Fedora Legal reply [1] the license of code bundled from mailx is probably GPL compatible, so the current license field is probably OK. I also forwarded they reply to upstream. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2014-July/002488.html FPC approved the bundling exception. I will re-upload modified SPEC/SRPM. Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/axmail/axmail.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/axmail/axmail-2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jsynacek/work/reviews/axmail/1121115-axmail/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/ax25 [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 51200 bytes in 4 files. [ ]: 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 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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: ftp://ftp.n1uro.net/packet/axmail-2.0.tar.gz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [ ]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: axmail-2.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm axmail-2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm axmail.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) addon -> ad don, ad-don, add on axmail.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-var-lock /var/lock/axmail axmail.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/axmail/copying axmail.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary axmail axmail.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) addon -> ad don, ad-don, add on axmail.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ftp://ftp.n1uro.net/packet/axmail-2.0.tar.gz <urlopen error ftp error: timed out> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint axmail axmail.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) addon -> ad don, ad-don, add on axmail.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-var-lock /var/lock/axmail axmail.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/axmail/copying axmail.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary axmail 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- axmail (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(axmail) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- axmail: axmail axmail(x86-64) bundled(mailx) config(axmail) Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1121115 Buildroot used: fedora-20-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 Comments inlined: ===== MUST items ===== [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jsynacek/work/reviews/axmail/1121115-axmail/licensecheck.txt LICENSE file present and is a GPLv2. Bundled files are most likely GPL compatible as mentioned in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2014-July/002488.html. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/ax25 There already is a request to libax to provide that directory. ===== SHOULD items ===== [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: ftp://ftp.n1uro.net/packet/axmail-2.0.tar.gz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags Manual download works. Rpmlint ------- Checking: axmail-2.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm axmail-2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm axmail.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) addon -> ad don, ad-don, add on axmail.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-var-lock /var/lock/axmail It's a ghost file, I don't see a problem with that. I don't think that ghosting a lock file is really necessary, though, but I'll leave this to the packager. axmail.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/axmail/copying Please, notify upstream about this. I don't have anything else to add, the package is simple and everything else looks ok. APPROVING. Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: axmail Short Description: UROnode addon - an SMTP mailbox Upstream URL: http://www.n1uro.net Owners: jskarvad Branches: f20 f21 Git done (by process-git-requests). axmail-2.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/axmail-2.0-1.fc20 axmail-2.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/axmail-2.0-1.fc21 axmail-2.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. axmail-2.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. |