Bug 1154879 - Review Request: wpan-tools - Userspace tools for the Linux IEEE 802.15.4 stack
Summary: Review Request: wpan-tools - Userspace tools for the Linux IEEE 802.15.4 stack
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Florian "der-flo" Lehner
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-10-20 22:41 UTC by Peter Robinson
Modified: 2014-10-21 22:47 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-10-21 22:47:44 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
dev: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Peter Robinson 2014-10-20 22:41:27 UTC
SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/wpan-tools.spec
SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/wpan-tools-0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm
Description:
Userspace tools for the Linux IEEE 802.15.4 stack

koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7919353

Comment 1 Florian "der-flo" Lehner 2014-10-21 15:40:47 UTC
Issues
======
[ ]: To create the tarball please take a look at:
     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Github
[ ]: Please set URL to https://github.com/linux-wpan/wpan-tools
[ ]: Don't forgett to mention the GPLv2 in nl802154.h


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]: 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 (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/flo/review/1154879-wpan-
     tools/licensecheck.txt

   ---> nl802154.h is licensed under GPLv2

[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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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 %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]: 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]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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.
   ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7925945
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define tarfile %{name}-%{version}
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.

===== 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: wpan-tools-0.1-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          wpan-tools-0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm
wpan-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace
wpan-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace
wpan-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iwpan
wpan-tools.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace
wpan-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace
wpan-tools.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
wpan-tools.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
wpan-tools.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
wpan-tools.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
wpan-tools.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
wpan-tools.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
wpan-tools.src: W: invalid-url Source0: wpan-tools-0.1.tar.bz2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint wpan-tools
wpan-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace
wpan-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace
wpan-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iwpan
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
wpan-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libnl-3.so.200()(64bit)
    libnl-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit)
    libnl-genl-3.so.200()(64bit)
    libnl-genl-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
wpan-tools:
    wpan-tools
    wpan-tools(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1154879
Buildroot used: fedora-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, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Comment 2 Peter Robinson 2014-10-21 16:19:49 UTC
> Issues
> ======
> [ ]: To create the tarball please take a look at:
>     
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/
> SourceURL#Github

No, I'm packaging on an explicit tagged version not some random git commit.

> [ ]: Please set URL to https://github.com/linux-wpan/wpan-tools

Why, the overall site covering all things on the project is the one that I have already set for the URL.

Comment 3 Florian "der-flo" Lehner 2014-10-21 16:31:43 UTC
(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #2)
> > Issues
> > ======
> > [ ]: To create the tarball please take a look at:
> >     
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/
> > SourceURL#Github
> 
> No, I'm packaging on an explicit tagged version not some random git commit.

Alternatively, Source0 could also be specified as follows:

https://github.com/linux-wpan/wpan-tools/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

I suggest using URLs in Source0 because it makes it easier to follow up.

> 
> > [ ]: Please set URL to https://github.com/linux-wpan/wpan-tools
> 
> Why, the overall site covering all things on the project is the one that I
> have already set for the URL.

The overall site offers more than just wpan-tools. Using https://github.com/linux-wpan/wpan-tools you are automatically directed to the right project.

Cheers,
 Flo

Comment 4 Peter Robinson 2014-10-21 17:14:19 UTC
(In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #3)
> (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #2)
> > > Issues
> > > ======
> > > [ ]: To create the tarball please take a look at:
> > >     
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/
> > > SourceURL#Github
> > 
> > No, I'm packaging on an explicit tagged version not some random git commit.
> 
> Alternatively, Source0 could also be specified as follows:
> 
> https://github.com/linux-wpan/wpan-tools/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-
> %{version}.tar.gz
> 
> I suggest using URLs in Source0 because it makes it easier to follow up.

You can suggest but ultimately it's the packagers choice, not a required hard requirement on packaging.

> > > [ ]: Please set URL to https://github.com/linux-wpan/wpan-tools
> > 
> > Why, the overall site covering all things on the project is the one that I
> > have already set for the URL.
> 
> The overall site offers more than just wpan-tools. Using
> https://github.com/linux-wpan/wpan-tools you are automatically directed to
> the right project.

wpan-tools is one component in the whole project, just like the gnome project or any number other large projects. I don't see the point in pointing to the web interface of the git scm

Comment 5 Florian "der-flo" Lehner 2014-10-21 17:33:34 UTC
(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #4)
> (In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #2)
> > > > Issues
> > > > ======
> > > > [ ]: To create the tarball please take a look at:
> > > >     
> > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/
> > > > SourceURL#Github
> > > 
> > > No, I'm packaging on an explicit tagged version not some random git commit.
> > 
> > Alternatively, Source0 could also be specified as follows:
> > 
> > https://github.com/linux-wpan/wpan-tools/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-
> > %{version}.tar.gz
> > 
> > I suggest using URLs in Source0 because it makes it easier to follow up.
> 
> You can suggest but ultimately it's the packagers choice, not a required
> hard requirement on packaging.
> 

yes. you're right.

> > > > [ ]: Please set URL to https://github.com/linux-wpan/wpan-tools
> > > 
> > > Why, the overall site covering all things on the project is the one that I
> > > have already set for the URL.
> > 
> > The overall site offers more than just wpan-tools. Using
> > https://github.com/linux-wpan/wpan-tools you are automatically directed to
> > the right project.
> 
> wpan-tools is one component in the whole project, just like the gnome
> project or any number other large projects. I don't see the point in
> pointing to the web interface of the git scm


I see your point and I'm ok with it.

Comment 6 Peter Robinson 2014-10-21 17:36:41 UTC
So the only other thing outstanding this licensing bits:

---> nl802154.h is licensed under GPLv2

Comment 8 Florian "der-flo" Lehner 2014-10-21 18:34:58 UTC
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



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]: 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:
     "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/flo/review/1154879-wpan-
     tools/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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.
   ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7927109
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define tarfile %{name}-%{version}
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.

===== 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: wpan-tools-0.1-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          wpan-tools-0.1-2.fc22.src.rpm
wpan-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace
wpan-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace
wpan-tools.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC + GPLv2
wpan-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iwpan
wpan-tools.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace
wpan-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace
wpan-tools.src: W: invalid-license ISC + GPLv2
wpan-tools.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
wpan-tools.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
wpan-tools.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
wpan-tools.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
wpan-tools.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
wpan-tools.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
wpan-tools.src: W: invalid-url Source0: wpan-tools-0.1.tar.bz2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint wpan-tools
wpan-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace
wpan-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace
wpan-tools.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC + GPLv2
wpan-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iwpan
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
wpan-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libnl-3.so.200()(64bit)
    libnl-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit)
    libnl-genl-3.so.200()(64bit)
    libnl-genl-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
wpan-tools:
    wpan-tools
    wpan-tools(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1154879
Buildroot used: fedora-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, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

===== Solution =====
      APPROVED

Comment 9 Peter Robinson 2014-10-21 18:45:11 UTC
New Package GIT Request
=======================
Package Name: wpan-tools
Short Description: Userspace tools for the Linux IEEE 802.15.4 stack
Owners: pbrobinson
Branches: F-21
InitialCC:

Comment 10 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-10-21 19:35:45 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 11 Peter Robinson 2014-10-21 22:47:44 UTC
Thanks for the review


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