Bug 1245929

A few things I have noticed:

1. License file is missing. You can add one and open a request for upstream to include it.
2. licensecheck reveals BSD and LGPL licensed files, and also many files using an incorrect FSF address. You can ask upstream to update their license clauses and add the missing licenses to the spec.

(In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #1)
> 1. License file is missing. You can add one and open a request for upstream
> to include it.
Upstream provides a copyright file in the debian/ subfolder, probably to meet Debian's packaging guidelines. I should use it since it's already available.

> 2. licensecheck reveals BSD and LGPL licensed files, and also many files
> using an incorrect FSF address. You can ask upstream to update their license
> clauses and add the missing licenses to the spec.
The BSD headers are only used when platform is built on Windows.

By the way, two issues detected by a Debian packager may impact this review:
1) licensing issue:
       https://github.com/Pulse-Eight/platform/issues/12
2) bundled library I missed (fstrcmp):
       https://github.com/Pulse-Eight/platform/issues/13
   Unbundling this library may solve the licensing conflict above (since latest versions seem to be full-GPLv2+).

Unfortunately the debian "copyright" file is not the same as the license text. It's not a hard blocker for the review, but the bundled lib and PHP license is.

New release:
- fstrcmp library is now unbundled (the fstrcmp.c file is no more used anymore, no more license conflict by the way)
- new package review for this library here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247672

Spec URL: https://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/platform/platform.spec
SRPM URL: https://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/platform/platform-1.0.10-2.fc22.src.rpm

Still missing a license file. Could you include one? This will get the review rolling.

New release:
- GPLv2 license file is now included in the package

Spec URL: https://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/platform/platform.spec
SRPM URL: https://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/platform/platform-1.0.10-3.fc22.src.rpm

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


===== ISSUES =====
The %{_libdir}/cmake directory in the devel package needs to be owned. Please add Requires: cmake to the -devel package to fix this. Otherwise this package is good.


PASSED


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]: 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)", "BSD (2
     clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
     generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /srv/ssd/michael/Temp/1245929-platform/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake
[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.
[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.
[!]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 %license.
[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]: 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]: 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:
[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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: 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.
[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.
[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]: Buildroot is not present
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: platform-1.0.10-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          platform-devel-1.0.10-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          platform-1.0.10-3.fc24.src.rpm
platform.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libCEC -> Liberace
platform.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ons -> nos, ins, obs
platform.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Platform
platform.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libCEC -> Liberace
platform.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ons -> nos, ins, obs
platform-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
platform-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/posix/os-types.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/posix/os-threads.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/sockets/cdevsocket.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/sockets/socket.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/util/timeutils.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/os.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/posix/os-socket.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/util/buffer.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/sockets/tcp.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/threads/mutex.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/threads/threads.h
platform.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libCEC -> Liberace
platform.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ons -> nos, ins, obs
platform.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Platform
platform.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libCEC -> Liberace
platform.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ons -> nos, ins, obs
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 12 warnings.


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: platform-debuginfo-1.0.10-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
platform.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Platform
platform.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libplatform.so.1.0.10 libplatform.so.1.0()(64bit)
platform.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libplatform.so.1.0.10 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
platform.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libplatform.so.1.0.10 /lib64/libm.so.6
platform-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
platform-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/threads/threads.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/threads/mutex.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/util/timeutils.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/os.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/sockets/tcp.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/sockets/socket.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/posix/os-types.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/posix/os-threads.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/util/buffer.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/sockets/cdevsocket.h
platform-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/platform/posix/os-socket.h
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 6 warnings.


Requires
--------
platform (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libfstrcmp.so.0()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

platform-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libplatform.so.1.0()(64bit)
    platform(x86-64)

Provides
--------
platform:
    libplatform.so.1.0()(64bit)
    platform
    platform(x86-64)

platform-devel:
    cmake(platform)
    pkgconfig(platform)
    platform-devel
    platform-devel(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Pulse-Eight/platform/archive/1.0.10/platform-1.0.10.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6ba3239cb1c0a5341efcf9488f4d3dfad8c26d6b2994b2b2247e5a61568ab5cd
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6ba3239cb1c0a5341efcf9488f4d3dfad8c26d6b2994b2b2247e5a61568ab5cd
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-rProvides
--------
platform:
    libplatform.so.1.0()(64bit)
    platform
    platform(x86-64)

platform-devel:
    cmake(platform)
    pkgconfig(platform)
    platform-devel
    platform-devel(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Pulse-Eight/platform/archive/1.0.10/platform-1.0.10.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6ba3239cb1c0a5341efcf9488f4d3dfad8c26d6b2994b2b2247e5a61568ab5cd
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6ba3239cb1c0a5341efcf9488f4d3dfad8c26d6b2994b2b2247e5a61568ab5cd
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1245929 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64eview -b 1245929 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64

(In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #7)
> ===== ISSUES =====
> The %{_libdir}/cmake directory in the devel package needs to be owned.
> Please add Requires: cmake to the -devel package to fix this. Otherwise this
> package is good.
This will be fixed at package import.

Thanks again for your review :)

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: platform
Short Description: Platform support library used by libCEC and binary add-ons for Kodi
Upstream URL: https://github.com/Pulse-Eight/platform/
Owners: melmorabity
Branches: f22 f23
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

platform-1.0.10-4.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245929

platform-1.0.10-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245929

platform-1.0.10-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update platform'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-13910

platform-1.0.10-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update platform'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-13911

platform-1.0.10-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

platform-1.0.10-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.