Bug 1292272
| Summary: | Review Request: nodm - A display manager automatically starting an X session | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Raphael Groner <projects.rg> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Christian Dersch <lupinix.fedora> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | lupinix.fedora, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | lupinix.fedora:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | TrivialFailure | ||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-01-09 13:30:50 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
Raphael Groner
2015-12-16 21:03:26 UTC
Review done. Not approved, because package doesn't work at least @x86_64 due to packaging issue :( Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/nodm See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ==> This is an unretirement of the mentioned package => Not an issue of course - Add "Requires: systemd" to spec - Install systemd unit @correct location https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Filesystem_locations ===== 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. [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)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/review/1292272-nodm/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/systemd, /usr/lib64/systemd/system [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/systemd, /usr/lib64/systemd/system ===> You install the systemd unit @wrong place! Should be /lib/... in general, not /usr/lib64. Have a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Filesystem_locations [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]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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 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 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). You have to require systemd, see above [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nodm- debuginfo [!]: Package functions as described. Doesn't work due to wrong location of systemd unit [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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) ==> Please use the version in SRPM! [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodm-0.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm nodm-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm nodm-0.7-1.fc23.src.rpm nodm.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: nodm-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc23.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 nodm.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/review/1292272-nodm/srpm/nodm.spec 2015-12-16 23:05:43.880000000 +0100 +++ /home/review/1292272-nodm/srpm-unpacked/nodm.spec 2015-12-16 21:56:28.000000000 +0100 @@ -4,6 +4,5 @@ Summary: A display manager automatically starting an X session -# nodm.cpp is under GPLv2+ and BSD (3 clause), config/install-sh with MIT/X11 -License: GPLv2+ and BSD and MIT +License: BSD and GPLv2+ URL: http://www.enricozini.org/sw/%{name} Source0: %{url}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Requires -------- nodm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpam_misc.so.0()(64bit) libpam_misc.so.0(LIBPAM_MISC_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) nodm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- nodm: nodm nodm(x86-64) nodm-debuginfo: nodm-debuginfo nodm-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.enricozini.org/sw/nodm/nodm-0.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0f74cf5cd08f958923a3123a75e945ecc727cb486b51c87cf5a235445bd0c42a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0f74cf5cd08f958923a3123a75e945ecc727cb486b51c87cf5a235445bd0c42a Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-23-x86_64 -b 1292272 Buildroot used: fedora-23-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 Christian, thanks for the review! I'll try to talk about official systemd support to Enrio Zini (upstream developer). In those times 2009, he wrote a howto about configuration with legacy init system, not sure if he likes systemd or not at all. http://enricozini.org/2008/tips/lightweight-autologin/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/locker/nodm.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/locker/nodm-0.7-2.fc23.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12224295 %changelog * Thu Dec 17 2015 Raphael Groner <> - 0.7-2 - add more systemd stuff - adjust License tag Approved, haven't tested functionality in detail, but as this is only a should item, this is no stopper for me. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/nodm See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ==> This is an unretirement of the mentioned package => Not an issue of course ===== 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. [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)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/review/1292272-nodm/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 [-]: 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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: 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 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nodm- debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodm-0.7-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm nodm-debuginfo-0.7-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm nodm-0.7-2.fc23.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: nodm-debuginfo-0.7-2.fc23.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 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- nodm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpam_misc.so.0()(64bit) libpam_misc.so.0(LIBPAM_MISC_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd nodm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- nodm: nodm nodm(x86-64) nodm-debuginfo: nodm-debuginfo nodm-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.enricozini.org/sw/nodm/nodm-0.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0f74cf5cd08f958923a3123a75e945ecc727cb486b51c87cf5a235445bd0c42a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0f74cf5cd08f958923a3123a75e945ecc727cb486b51c87cf5a235445bd0c42a Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-23-x86_64 -b 1292272 Buildroot used: fedora-23-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 Asked in PkgDB for unretirement and new branches. nodm-0.7-3.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-6bb2169d1e F23, F22 packages both currently blocked, asked at releng to unblock. nodm-0.7-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodm' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-6bb2169d1e koschei's scratch build of nodm-0.7-3.fc24.src.rpm for f24 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12414729 nodm-0.7-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-61a3f60fc6 nodm-0.7-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f56d641101 nodm-0.7-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-f56d641101 nodm-0.7-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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-2016-61a3f60fc6 Some more testing shows to me that we need more configuration to get nodm work as expected. Version 0.7 as mentioned in upstream URL is not the latest version cause Debian has sources of a version 0.11 with more features. I decided to unpush all bodhi updates. There's definitely more investigation needed for a serious package. [!]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Please open new bugs to track both problems. Review is done and this is not a general nodm tracking bug ;) Removed alias because I cannot search for other nodm bugs without directly being redirected to this one here. Fixed in Rawhide. Please remove any previous nodm-0.7-3 package for sure before new installation, just update won't work nicely: dnf remove -y dnf ; rm -rf /etc/default/nodm nodm-0.11-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a0a434f1fe nodm-0.11-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-a0a434f1fe |