Bug 1061536 (ofono) - Review Request: ofono - Open Source Telephony
Summary: Review Request: ofono - Open Source Telephony
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: ofono
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Antonio T. (sagitter)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1045548
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-02-05 03:00 UTC by Rex Dieter
Modified: 2014-03-11 03:59 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: ofono-1.14-1.fc20
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-03-11 03:59:11 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
anto.trande: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Rex Dieter 2014-02-05 03:00:38 UTC
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ofono/ofono.spec
SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ofono/ofono-1.14-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description:
oFono.org is a place to bring developers together around designing an
infrastructure for building mobile telephony (GSM/UMTS) applications.
oFono includes a high-level D-Bus API for use by telephony applications.
oFono also includes a low-level plug-in API for integrating with telephony
stacks, cellular modems and storage back-ends.

Fedora Account System Username: rdieter

Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6493057

rpmlint:
ofono.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
ofono.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/ofono.conf
ofono-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Comment 1 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2014-02-16 20:30:37 UTC
Hi Rex.

Review swap with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088 ?

Comment 2 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2014-02-18 17:17:25 UTC
- There are other files (as /btio) involved; they are licensed with a GPLv2+.
  To me, GPLv2+ is more correct for License tag.


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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/sagitter/1061536-ofono/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 4 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 %doc.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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 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: ofono-1.14-1.fc21.i686.rpm
          ofono-devel-1.14-1.fc21.i686.rpm
          ofono-1.14-1.fc21.src.rpm
ofono.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
ofono.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/ofono.conf
ofono-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint ofono-devel ofono
ofono-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
ofono.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
ofono.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/ofono.conf
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
ofono-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    ofono(x86-32)
    pkgconfig(dbus-1)
    pkgconfig(glib-2.0)

ofono (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    config(ofono)
    libc.so.6
    libdbus-1.so.3
    libdl.so.2
    libgcc_s.so.1
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)
    libglib-2.0.so.0
    libudev.so.1
    libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    systemd



Provides
--------
ofono-devel:
    ofono-devel
    ofono-devel(x86-32)
    pkgconfig(ofono)

ofono:
    config(ofono)
    ofono
    ofono(x86-32)



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/network/ofono/ofono-1.14.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 84d28d37cbc47129628a78bf3e17323af1636dceb2494511dd44caa829fb277f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 84d28d37cbc47129628a78bf3e17323af1636dceb2494511dd44caa829fb277f


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1061536
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, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Comment 3 Rex Dieter 2014-02-18 19:49:50 UTC
Re: Licensing

There are a lot of GPLv2 only files here, so am limited by the most-restrictive one (ie, GPLv2 code + GPLv2+ code = GPLv2), see also:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F

Comment 4 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2014-02-18 20:57:54 UTC
Package approved.

Comment 5 Rex Dieter 2014-02-24 18:29:54 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: ofono
Short Description: Open Source Telephony
Owners: rdieter
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC:

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-02-24 18:49:30 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2014-02-25 16:50:25 UTC
ofono-1.14-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ofono-1.14-1.fc20

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2014-02-26 13:53:36 UTC
ofono-1.14-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2014-03-11 03:59:11 UTC
ofono-1.14-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.