Bug 1982772

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=71956987

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present. (ignores %autorelease)
- Installs files into systemd owned directory, but does not require it nor own directories itself


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

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
     later". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/1982772-ndppd/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/lib/tmpfiles.d,
     /usr/lib/systemd, /usr/lib/systemd/system
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
     -- should Requires: systemd; because it installs into %{_tmpfilesdir} and %{_unitdir}
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
     systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
     Note: Systemd service file(s) in ndppd
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not 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]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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: ndppd-0.2.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          ndppd-debuginfo-0.2.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          ndppd-debugsource-0.2.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          ndppd-0.2.5-1.fc35.src.rpm
ndppd.src:56: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: ndppd-debuginfo-0.2.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





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


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/DanielAdolfsson/ndppd/raw/e01d67a864bbeeb8e15f35ad955aecafa52e4c3d/ndppd.service :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d0d71e93978f7859fbdfb0e2369aafa4a997b1b4e50044f24b324927ff25c5fd
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d0d71e93978f7859fbdfb0e2369aafa4a997b1b4e50044f24b324927ff25c5fd
https://github.com/DanielAdolfsson/ndppd/archive/0.2.5/ndppd-0.2.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ee934167f8357f0bd0015e201a77fbe4d028c59e89dc98113805c6855e1c3992
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ee934167f8357f0bd0015e201a77fbe4d028c59e89dc98113805c6855e1c3992


Requires
--------
ndppd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    glibc
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

ndppd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

ndppd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
ndppd:
    ndppd
    ndppd(x86-64)

ndppd-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    ndppd-debuginfo
    ndppd-debuginfo(x86-64)

ndppd-debugsource:
    ndppd-debugsource
    ndppd-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1982772
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, fonts, Java, PHP, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.

(forgot to check those boxes, they are okay)

Based on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#_packaging https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Tmpfiles.d and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd I don't actually think this needs a Requires on systemd, and looking at other packages that install units I don't see it there either.

Okay, I admit you are correct. All my packages with service files do not require systemd explicitly nor own %_unitdir directory themselves. I haven't found any mention about it in guidelines.

Maybe it is okay, according to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/:
- the directory belongs to your package and does not belong to any core package or base filesystem package that is considered essential/fundamental to any Fedora System.

I am pretty sure systemd IS core package. I think it should provide systemd-filesystem owning just empty %_unitdir, %_userunitdir and %_tmpfilesdir to avoid unnecessary warnings. Not to be solved for your package however.

Because those were the only issues found, giving review+. Thanks for your package.

Thanks!

$ fedpkg request-repo ndppd 1982772
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36035

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ndppd

FEDORA-2021-4b43b575e2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4b43b575e2

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-caf4df5837 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-caf4df5837

FEDORA-2021-4b43b575e2 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-4b43b575e2 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4b43b575e2

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-caf4df5837 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-caf4df5837

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-4b43b575e2 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-caf4df5837 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

I can't find the component in the Bugzilla yet so I'll append this here.

I want to use this on RHEL 7 but the spec file is using systemd-rpm-macros. I patched the spec file to work around that, and will attach my version.

The spec file lacks a default config file and appropriate %config tagging for it.

Created attachment 1834067 [details]
spec file revised to build without systemd-rpm-macros (ie. RHEL 7)

Based on patch here to ceph-iscsi daemon: https://github.com/ceph/ceph-iscsi/pull/93/commits/35f0532990356e00e79656a8cdae379885be8725

Sure, I've cut https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2015160 to track that.