Bug 1229903
| Summary: | Review Request: NetworkManager-sstp - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSTP | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Marcin Zajaczkowski <mszpak> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | goeran, i, lkundrak, package-review, rkhan |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | lkundrak:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-09-08 21:15:06 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: | |||
|
Description
Marcin Zajaczkowski
2015-06-09 21:44:33 UTC
I did a self-review with fedora-review and fixed one issue (not detected by rpmlint) to use %license macro for license files instead of %doc. As spotted by Jirka Klimes URL in a spec file pointed to NetworkManager itself which makes it harder to find the plugin project itself. I changed URL respectively. Btw, trying to use fedora-review I discovered that for tools it could be better to use raw version of the file instead of HTML page. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/szpak/network-manager-sstp/39e4923e3677822d29b9caf9281a74ca03466730/NetworkManager-sstp.spec SRPM URL: http://timeoff.wsisiz.edu.pl/rpms/NetworkManager-sstp/NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10-5.fc21.src.rpm I intended to submit this by myself since I'm the maintainer of sstp-client in Fedora. I'm not sure what I will do now, because there are always some people trying to submit packages after a dep of it is packaged by myself. :( You can always become a co-maintainer of NetworkManager-sstp and have the another package to (co-)maintain :). (In reply to Marcin Zajaczkowski from comment #3) > You can always become a co-maintainer of NetworkManager-sstp and have the > another package to (co-)maintain :). I will give up ;) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: 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: "GPL (v2 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck: GPL (v2 or later) ----------------- NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/auth-dialog/main.c NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/ltmain.sh NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/properties/advanced-dialog.c NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/properties/advanced-dialog.h NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/properties/import-export.c NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/properties/import-export.h NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/properties/nm-sstp.c NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/properties/nm-sstp.h NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/src/nm-ppp-status.h NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/src/nm-sstp-pppd-plugin.c NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/src/nm-sstp-service-defines.h NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/src/nm-sstp-service.c NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/src/nm-sstp-service.h [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/dbus-1/system.d [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dbus-1/system.d, /usr/lib/NetworkManager [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. [-]: 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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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 61440 bytes in 8 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [x]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in NetworkManager-sstp-gnome , NetworkManager-sstp-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.12 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled 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 ccache Mock Version: 1.2.12 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.12 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/rpmaker/Desktop/NetworkManager-sstp/results/NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10-3.fc24.i686.rpm /home/rpmaker/Desktop/NetworkManager-sstp/results/NetworkManager-sstp-gnome-0.9.10-3.fc24.i686.rpm /home/rpmaker/Desktop/NetworkManager-sstp/results/NetworkManager-sstp-debuginfo-0.9.10-3.fc24.i686.rpm /home/rpmaker/Desktop/NetworkManager-sstp/results/NetworkManager-sstp-debuginfo-0.9.10-3.fc24.i686.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/ --releasever 24 install /home/rpmaker/Desktop/NetworkManager-sstp/results/NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10-3.fc24.i686.rpm /home/rpmaker/Desktop/NetworkManager-sstp/results/NetworkManager-sstp-gnome-0.9.10-3.fc24.i686.rpm /home/rpmaker/Desktop/NetworkManager-sstp/results/NetworkManager-sstp-debuginfo-0.9.10-3.fc24.i686.rpm /home/rpmaker/Desktop/NetworkManager-sstp/results/NetworkManager-sstp-debuginfo-0.9.10-3.fc24.i686.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10-3.fc24.i686.rpm NetworkManager-sstp-gnome-0.9.10-3.fc24.i686.rpm NetworkManager-sstp-debuginfo-0.9.10-3.fc24.i686.rpm NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10-3.fc24.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- NetworkManager-sstp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): NetworkManager-sstp-gnome (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): NetworkManager-sstp libatk-1.0.so.0 libc.so.6 libcairo-gobject.so.2 libcairo.so.2 libdbus-1.so.3 libdbus-glib-1.so.2 libgdk-3.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libgio-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgtk-3.so.0 libnm-glib-vpn.so.1 libnm-glib.so.4 libnm-util.so.2 libpango-1.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libpthread.so.0 nm-connection-editor rtld(GNU_HASH) NetworkManager-sstp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): NetworkManager config(NetworkManager-sstp) dbus gnome-keyring gtk3 libatk-1.0.so.0 libc.so.6 libcairo-gobject.so.2 libcairo.so.2 libdbus-1.so.3 libdbus-1.so.3(LIBDBUS_1_3) libdbus-glib-1.so.2 libgdk-3.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libgio-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgtk-3.so.0 libnm-glib-vpn.so.1 libnm-glib.so.4 libnm-gtk.so.0 libnm-util.so.2 libpango-1.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libsecret-1.so.0 libsstp_api-0.so ppp rtld(GNU_HASH) shared-mime-info sstp-client Provides -------- NetworkManager-sstp-debuginfo: NetworkManager-sstp-debuginfo NetworkManager-sstp-debuginfo(x86-32) NetworkManager-sstp-gnome: NetworkManager-sstp-gnome NetworkManager-sstp-gnome(x86-32) NetworkManager-sstp: NetworkManager-sstp NetworkManager-sstp(x86-32) config(NetworkManager-sstp) Unversioned so-files -------------------- NetworkManager-sstp: /usr/lib/pppd/2.4.7/nm-sstp-pppd-plugin.so NetworkManager-sstp-gnome: /usr/lib/NetworkManager/libnm-sstp-properties.so Source checksums ---------------- https://downloads.sourceforge.net/sstp-client/NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 10949bb97d0930df7b46de931fd302f607e4ca4b5137e2e046ec358188faee52 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 10949bb97d0930df7b46de931fd302f607e4ca4b5137e2e046ec358188faee52 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/configure.ac:17 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rvn NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10-3.fc21.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 ------------------------------ 1. Ignore `Installation errors`, since it's something wrong in system-wide, not this package. 2. Fix all [!] items. 3. Drop changelog not from you. ALSO, leave a blank for each changelog entry. 4. Epoch: 1 This doesn't make sense at all. If you submit something to Fedora, could you copy the spec form others wholesale? 5. Drop all Group tags. 6. ``` BuildRequires: gtk3-devel BuildRequires: dbus-devel BuildRequires: NetworkManager-devel >= 0.9.10 BuildRequires: NetworkManager-glib-devel BuildRequires: sstp-client-devel BuildRequires: glib2-devel BuildRequires: ppp-devel BuildRequires: libtool intltool gettext BuildRequires: libsecret-devel BuildRequires: libnm-gtk-devel Requires: gtk3 Requires: dbus Requires: NetworkManager >= 0.9.10 Requires: sstp-client Requires: ppp Requires: shared-mime-info Requires: gnome-keyring ``` RPM is not dumb like past, drop eplicit requires unless RPM can't detect and pull in. Plus, the people who wrote the spec put wrong requires of gnome-specific to main package, dependency mess of course. 7. %if 0%{?fedora} > 17 Well, are we in the same contemporary fedora lifecycle? 8. Requires: ppp Not enough, once ppp bumps the version, this plugin will be broken. 9. %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} -> %setup -q 10. if [ ! -f configure ]; then ./autogen.sh fi Well, if you want to make autogen work, you at least need to BR autoconf automake libtool. Instead of getting packaging complex and overcomplicated, please drop it. 11. %description -n NetworkManager-sstp-gnome This package contains software for integrating VPN capabilities with the SSTP server with NetworkManager (GNOME files). Please rework the description, `with...with...` sounds redundant and not grammatical. ------------------------------ AGAIN, if you submit something to Fedora, could you copy the spec form others wholesale? Not clear in the comment. Finished the review from phone, results generated from remote server. ;)
> could you copy the spec form others wholesale?
Should be:
Would you stop copying the spec form others wholesale?
------------------------------
Nevermind, fix above issues, I will review again.
This seems to have fallen asleep. Do you still have the ambition to package NetworkManager-sstp for Fedora? Thanks Goran for the reminder. And big thanks Christopher for the review! This weekend I will be at DevConf.cz and (drawing from the vibe) will try to move it forward. IT took me a while, but I was able to manage it > [!]: Buildroot is not present Removed > [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros > Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/configure.ac:17 I can ask the project author to replace it with LT_INIT by the next version. Do you see it as a blocker and I need to create a patch? > 3. Drop changelog not from you. ALSO, leave a blank for each changelog entry. I'm not convinced to drop the old changelog entries. There is a history how the package evolved before it became a part of Fedora. In many packages available in Fedora there is that history kept. > 4. Epoch: 1 > This doesn't make sense at all. The original specification author took it for unknown reasons. The benefit of using it would be an ability to upgrade to the never version when available in Fedora (in other case it would have to be done manually by removing old package). Nevertheless you think it would be a good move I can remove it. > 5. Drop all Group tags. Done > 6. RPM is not dumb like past, drop eplicit requires unless RPM can't detect and pull in. I was able to remove NetworkManager-devel from BuildRequires and gtk3 from Requires. Looking at the generated requires maybe also dbus could be removed from Requires as there is a reference to libdbus-1.so.3, but dbus-libs in theory could be installed without a dbus package. > 7. %if 0%{?fedora} > 17 Done > 8. Requires: ppp > Not enough, once ppp bumps the version, this plugin will be broken. I changed the minimal ppp version to 2.4.6. In Fedora 23 there is 2.4.7 and it seems to work fine. Do you suggest to set 2.4.7 as the highest allowed version? I don't if changes in 2.4.8 will be compatible with sstp plugin or not, but maybe it is too strict constraint? > 9. %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} > 10. if [ ! -f configure ]; then Done > Would you stop copying the spec form others wholesale? I could do it from scratch, but it seemed a better solution for me to reuse existing spec file for a sibling project which is already in Fedora (which should be quite ok as it passed the initial review - in hindsight I see that the pptp package is quite old (2007) and could stand our from the current standards). >> This package contains software for integrating VPN capabilities with the SSTP server with NetworkManager (GNOME files). > Please rework the description, `with...with...` sounds redundant and not grammatical. The description is exactly the same in all NetworkManager-*-gnome I've seen. Nevertheless I changes it to: > This package contains software for integrating VPN capabilities using the SSTP server with NetworkManager (GNOME files). English is not my mother tongue, so please propose something else if you don't like it. SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/szpak/network-manager-sstp/c4d04a21428183a5d3f5ba2165666dc32851d998/NetworkManager-sstp.spec SRPM URL: http://timeoff.wsisiz.edu.pl/rpms/NetworkManager-sstp/NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10-6.fc23.src.rpm Regarding AC_PROG_LIBTOOL I disabled using autogen.sh, so the only thing I can do is to report it upstream. This review seems stalled on Reviewer. I'm now formally asking the reviewer to continue the review. *Sponsor hat on* No response from the reviewer. Thanks for packaging this. The package now addresses all points risen in review and looks good. APPROVED Please note that there has been many updates for the plugin for NetworkManager 1.2 that's in Fedora 24. I asked the upstream to do a 1.2.0 release and they will probably do that anytime soon Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/NetworkManager-sstp NetworkManager-sstp-1.2.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-dc25b53d8d NetworkManager-sstp-1.2.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9708701139 NetworkManager-sstp-1.2.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9708701139 NetworkManager-sstp-1.2.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-dc25b53d8d NetworkManager-sstp-1.2.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. NetworkManager-sstp-1.2.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |