Bug 1269001
Summary: | Review Request: tinycbor - Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Library | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2021-08-11 00:45:34 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: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 201449, 1269538 |
Description
Jared Smith
2015-10-05 22:07:18 UTC
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]: 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1269001-tinycbor/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/pkgconfig [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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. [!]: 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 10240 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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: tinycbor-devel. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [!]: 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 tinycbor-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tinycbor-0.2-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm tinycbor-devel-0.2-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm tinycbor-0.2-1.fc24.src.rpm tinycbor.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog tinycbor.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cbordump tinycbor-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog tinycbor-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation tinycbor.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog tinycbor.src:47: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libtinycbor.a tinycbor.src:48: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/pkgconfig/tinycbor.pc tinycbor.src:2: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 2) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tinycbor-debuginfo-0.2-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm tinycbor-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog tinycbor-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory tinycbor-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog tinycbor-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources tinycbor.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog tinycbor.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cbordump tinycbor-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog tinycbor-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/tom/1269001-tinycbor/srpm/tinycbor.spec 2015-10-07 18:26:41.292908882 +0100 +++ /home/tom/1269001-tinycbor/srpm-unpacked/tinycbor.spec 2015-10-05 22:48:44.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ -Name: tinycbor +Name: tinycbor Version: 0.2 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Library -License: MIT +License: MIT URL: https://github.com/01org/tinycbor Source0: https://github.com/01org/tinycbor/archive/v0.2.tar.gz @@ -12,6 +12,6 @@ Patch1: tinycbor_DEFAULT_SOURCE.patch -#BuildRequires: -#Requires: +#BuildRequires: +#Requires: %description @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ %files devel -%{libdir}/libtinycbor.a -%{libdir}/pkgconfig/tinycbor.pc -%{includedir}/tinycbor +/usr/lib/libtinycbor.a +/usr/lib/pkgconfig/tinycbor.pc +/usr/include/tinycbor %changelog Requires -------- tinycbor (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tinycbor-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- tinycbor: tinycbor tinycbor(x86-64) tinycbor-devel: tinycbor-devel tinycbor-devel(x86-64) tinycbor-static Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/01org/tinycbor/archive/v0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6a5add2a68faec34e9235cb3a8987fa9880bb106ad7473e1435e9742223b25df CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6a5add2a68faec34e9235cb3a8987fa9880bb106ad7473e1435e9742223b25df Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1269001 Buildroot used: compton-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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Quite a few things here: [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/pkgconfig Need to require pkgconfig, and in any case it should be lib64 for both this and the library on x86_64. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Need to get $RPM_OPT_FLAGS in there. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Use %{_bindir}, %{_libdir} etc in file lists. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. MIT license requires text so we will need to add it locally until upstream do. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. There are tests, any chance of running them? [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. See fedora-review output. Also no version number in changelog header. Also, per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries we should be trying to build it as a shared library if possible... This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted. This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience. This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it. |