Bug 1214002

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

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



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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[N/A]: 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 ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 211 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/nhorman/1214002-toolshed/licensecheck.txt
NH: license is listed on sourceforge site:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/toolshed/

[N/A]: 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.
[N/A]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[N/A]: 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.
NH Nit:
Not sure if the release tag is kosher.  Snapshot package guidelines indicate only
the short form SHA1 sum.

[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[N/A]: 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.
[N/A]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
     Note: Test run failed
[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]: 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]: 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.

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

Generic:
[?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
NH: John, I think you mentioned sending a note about this correct?

[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in toolshed-
     doc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[N/A]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
NH: Documentation describes reasoning properly

[N/A]: 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.
NH: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9549149

[N/A]: %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]: 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.
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
     Note: Test run failed
[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]: 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]: 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.

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

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


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          toolshed-doc-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc20.src.rpm
toolshed.x86_64: W: no-documentation
toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os9
toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ar2
toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cocofuse
toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mamou
toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary decb
toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tocgen
toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary makewav
toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cecb
toolshed.src: W: strange-permission generate-tarball.sh 0755L
toolshed.src: W: invalid-url Source0: toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-noroms.tar.gz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
toolshed (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libfuse.so.2()(64bit)
    libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.6)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

toolshed-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    toolshed



Provides
--------
toolshed:
    toolshed
    toolshed(x86-64)

toolshed-doc:
    toolshed-doc



====NH Comments====

Looks pretty good, I'm not opposed to the release tag as it is, but if you want to shorten it, thats fine with me.  Only outstanding question I have is have you contacted upstream about documenting the Public Domain License in the code.  If you have, this is an ACK from me

Regarding the release tag:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages

"Snapshot packages contain data about where the snapshot came from as well as ordering information for rpm. The information about the snapshot will be called %{checkout} in this section.

%{checkout} consists of the date that the snapshot is made in YYYYMMDD format, a short (2-5 characters) string identifying the type of revision control system or that this is a snapshot, and optionally, up to 13 characters (ASCII) alphanumeric characters that could be useful in finding the revision in the revision control system."

So, I think that while 20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe is ugly, it meets the guidelines. :-)

Regarding the license documentation:

I met with the primary developer of the package this weekend and explained the desire for more thorough licene documentation.  However, he mostly shrugged off the concern and pointed-out that the code has been marked as Public Domain on Sourceforge for roughly 15 years, with no complaints from anyone.  I don't expect that they will take any action on that issue. :-(

Ok, then you've met the requirements.  review + set, you're good to go.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: toolshed
Short Description: Cross-development toolkit for use with the Tandy Color Computer
Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/toolshed/
Owners: linville
Branches: f21 f22
InitialCC: linville

Git done (by process-git-requests).

toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc22

toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc21

toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.

toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.