Spec URL: http://plautrba.fedorapeople.org/secilc/secilc.spec SRPM URL: http://plautrba.fedorapeople.org/secilc/secilc-2.4-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: The SELinux CIL Compiler is a compiler that converts the CIL language as described on the CIL design wiki into a kernel binary policy file. Please see the CIL Design Wiki at: http://github.com/SELinuxProject/cil/wiki/ for more information about the goals and features on the CIL language. Fedora Account System Username: plautrba
-doc package should be noarch.
Spec URL: http://plautrba.fedorapeople.org/secilc/secilc.spec SRPM URL: http://plautrba.fedorapeople.org/secilc/secilc-2.4-2.fc24.src.rpm * Tue Jul 21 2015 Petr Lautrbach <plautrba> 2.4-2 - make secilc-doc package noarch
The packages have been built/installed/tested successfully by provided sources.
(In reply to Petr Lautrbach from comment #2) > Spec URL: http://plautrba.fedorapeople.org/secilc/secilc.spec > SRPM URL: http://plautrba.fedorapeople.org/secilc/secilc-2.4-2.fc24.src.rpm > > * Tue Jul 21 2015 Petr Lautrbach <plautrba> 2.4-2 > - make secilc-doc package noarch DownloadError: 'Error 404 downloading http://plautrba.fedorapeople.org/secilc/secilc-2.4-2.fc24.src.rpm' 07-22 09:47 root ERROR ERROR: 'Error 404 downloading http://plautrba.fedorapeople.org/secilc/secilc-2.4-2.fc24.src.rpm' (logs in /home/dkopecek/.cache/fedora-review.log) Please upload the package so that I can review it. Thanks.
Fixed, I accidentally uploaded secilc-2.4-2.fc23.src.rpm instead of secilc-2.4-2.fc24.src.rpm. Sorry.
secilc.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libsepol You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded explicit Requires: tags. Why does the tool require static linkage to libsepol and the explicit Requires on libsepol?
Also, during the package build phase, a lot of useless stuff gets compiled including libsepo.a,.so and some binaries that are removed afterwards. This only slows down the build of the package and should be avoided.
secilc.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man8/secilc.8.gz The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not.
secilc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files. This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo extraction not working as expected. Verify that the binaries are not unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used.
Please resolve the issues described in comments #6, #7, #8 and #9 so that I can continue with the review process.
(In reply to Daniel Kopeček from comment #6) > secilc.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libsepol > You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded > explicit Requires: tags. fixed > > Why does the tool require static linkage to libsepol and the explicit > Requires on libsepol? Requires on sepol was removed as wrong. But it still links against static libsepol.a library. It's already changed in upstream devel tree and it will be addressed in the update to the next upstream release in future. Right now, it would need backport several commits including a code move and a re-factorization. (In reply to Daniel Kopeček from comment #9) > secilc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources fixed SRPM URL: http://plautrba.fedorapeople.org/secilc/secilc-2.4-3.fc24.src.rpm
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) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/dkopecek/1245270-secilc/srpm/secilc.spec 2015-07-23 03:32:46.337000000 -0400 +++ /home/dkopecek/1245270-secilc/srpm-unpacked/secilc.spec 2015-07-22 10:22:01.000000000 -0400 @@ -35,5 +35,5 @@ %build pushd cil -make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="%{optflags}" +make %{?_smp_mflags} DESTDIR="%{buildroot}" LIBDIR="%{buildroot}%{_libdir}" SHLIBDIR="%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}" pushd docs make %{?_smp_mflags}
secilc.src:37: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build make %{?_smp_mflags} DESTDIR="%{buildroot}" LIBDIR="%{buildroot}%{_libdir}" SHLIBDIR="%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}"
[!]: 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. The license text is in the file libsepol-2.4/cil/COPYING. The provided spec file doesn't contain %license.
SRPM URL: http://plautrba.fedorapeople.org/secilc/secilc-2.4-4.fc24.src.rpm * Thu Jul 23 2015 Petr Lautrbach <plautrba> 2.4-4 - add license file
Rawhide scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10447439 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dkopecek/1245270-secilc/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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in secilc- doc [x]: 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. [-]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: secilc-2.4-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm secilc-doc-2.4-4.fc24.noarch.rpm secilc-2.4-4.fc24.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: secilc-debuginfo-2.4-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- secilc-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): secilc secilc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- secilc-doc: secilc-doc secilc: secilc secilc(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- 50202/libsepol-2.4.tar.gz : 08b47286a4bfc02ee49659 08b47286a4bfc02ee49659 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1245270 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ HP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: secilc Short Description: The SELinux CIL Compiler is a compiler that converts the CIL Upstream URL: https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux/wiki Owners: plautrba mgrepl Branches: f23 InitialCC:
> %package doc > Summary: Documentation for the SELinux CIL Compiler > Requires: secilc = %{version}-%{release} Please drop the Requires there. HTML and PDF do not need the base package at install-time or to display them. It's so much more convenient, if one can install Documentation packages without dragging in dependencies.
Git done (by process-git-requests).