Spec URL: https://people.redhat.com/jkratoch/libipt.spec SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/jkratoch/libipt-1.4.2-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Library for GDB for Intel Haswell/Skylake tracing feature Fedora Account System Username: jankratochvil
Associated prepared gdb.spec patch: http://people.redhat.com/jkratoch/libipt-gdb.patch
I will review the package.
Description: Library for GDB for Intel Broadwell/Skylake tracing feature (not Haswell)
This is the package review. My only comment, based on the rpmlint warnings, is to use %defattr(0644,root,root,-) in the %files section of the main RPM, just to make sure that the shlib file gets installed without +x. Other than that, the package is good and I am setting the fedora-review+ flag. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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 (3 clause)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp /libipt-review/libipt/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. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 51200 bytes in 3 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]: 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 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]: 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. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: No tests are provided with the package. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libipt-1.4.2-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm libipt-devel-1.4.2-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm libipt-1.4.2-1.fc24.src.rpm libipt.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libipt.so.1.4.0 exit.5 libipt-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libipt-debuginfo-1.4.2-1.fc24.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 libipt.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libipt.so.1.4.0 libipt.so.1()(64bit) libipt.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libipt.so.1.4.0 exit.5 libipt-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- libipt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libipt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libipt(x86-64) libipt.so.1()(64bit) Provides -------- libipt: libipt libipt(x86-64) libipt.so.1()(64bit) libipt-devel: libipt-devel libipt-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/01org/processor-trace/archive/v1.4.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1f677928c4f4bab4fd3cd0f06bea89b6e5aab52ffade25dcaa5d1488ba804cf3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1f677928c4f4bab4fd3cd0f06bea89b6e5aab52ffade25dcaa5d1488ba804cf3 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn libipt-1.4.2-1.fc24.src.rpm -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
1. %doc README LICENSE %doc README %license LICENSE 2. Consider drop Group tags.
Implemented all the suggestions from Sergio and Christopher Meng. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libipt Short Description: Intel Processor Trace Decoder Library Upstream URL: https://github.com/01org/processor-trace Owners: jankratochvil Branches: f23 InitialCC: sergiodj
2 minor issues with this spec: - The %defattr(0644,root,root,-) in %files are an anachronism. Please remove them - Your %{version}-%{release} (1.4.2-1.fc24) in %changelog is carries a hardcoded %dist. It should be 1.4.2-1 (without %dist).
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #7) > 2 minor issues with this spec: > > - The %defattr(0644,root,root,-) in %files are an anachronism. > Please remove them Without this %defattr, the shlib is installed with +x (thus generating a rpmlint warning). Is there any other way to fix this?
(In reply to Sergio Durigan Junior from comment #8) > Without this %defattr, the shlib is installed with +x (thus generating a > rpmlint warning). Is there any other way to fix this? Which OS are you on? I do not see such warning: # rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/libipt*-1.4.2-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm libipt.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libipt.so.1.4.0 exit.5 libipt-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # rpm -qlvp /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/libipt*-1.4.2-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm | grep lib.*.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Sep 3 07:06 /usr/lib64/libipt.so.1 -> libipt.so.1.4.0 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 71736 Sep 3 07:06 /usr/lib64/libipt.so.1.4.0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 33 Sep 3 07:06 /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/d9/ec6747d0130ae21dafc10f3d04ee7268bd3dbd -> ../../../../lib64/libipt.so.1.4.0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 37 Sep 3 07:06 /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/d9/ec6747d0130ae21dafc10f3d04ee7268bd3dbd.debug -> ../../usr/lib64/libipt.so.1.4.0.debug -r--r--r-- 1 root root 285968 Sep 3 07:06 /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libipt.so.1.4.0.debug lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Sep 3 07:06 /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libipt.so.1.debug -> libipt.so.1.4.0.debug lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Sep 3 07:06 /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libipt.so.debug -> libipt.so.1.4.0.debug lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 Sep 3 07:06 /usr/lib64/libipt.so -> libipt.so.1 Besides this, such a warning from rpmlint would contradict Fedora conventions. Should your rpmlint produce an error this would be a bug in rpmlint. Though its arguable whether shared libs need to be +x, for historical reasons, it's Fedora convention to install shared lib with +x. IMO, should this convention change, then this change should happen inside of rpm and not inside of packages.
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #7) > - Your %{version}-%{release} (1.4.2-1.fc24) in %changelog is carries a > hardcoded %dist. It should be 1.4.2-1 (without %dist). This is intentional and it is permitted by rpmlint-1.7-1.fc23.noarch: libipt.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.2-1.fc20 ['1.4.2-1.fc24', '1.4.2-1'] Although I admit it is not listed/permitted by: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs That %changelog is on a Fedora branch shared with F-23 so it is known that the tag should be .fc23, I do not see why to hide it. I added it to gdb.spec as otherwise when diffing branches for later backporting it is a mess without seeing on which branch which entries were added.
%defattr is really listed as obsolete: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions I agree with Sergio that (these) shlibs should not have +x but I also agree with Ralf (almost) all the Fedora shlibs do use +x. So I have removed both %attr and %defattr and the shlibs are +x now.
(In reply to Jan Kratochvil from comment #10) > (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #7) > > - Your %{version}-%{release} (1.4.2-1.fc24) in %changelog is carries a > > hardcoded %dist. It should be 1.4.2-1 (without %dist). > > This is intentional and it is permitted by rpmlint-1.7-1.fc23.noarch: > libipt.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.2-1.fc20 > ['1.4.2-1.fc24', '1.4.2-1'] Forget about rpmlint - It's an aid, but much closer to BS than to a real tool. > Although I admit it is not listed/permitted by: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs This is intentional, because %dist tags in changelog entries will force maintainers to modify their specs each time they are merging from different branches. Nobody with a little experience in Fedora would apply $dist tags in changelog entries and ... almost nobody has done so for > 10 years.
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #12) > This is intentional, because %dist tags in changelog entries will force > maintainers to modify their specs each time they are merging from different > branches. When making a backport this is useful as one sees on which branch the change being backported has been made. Missing %dist tag is a disadantage. I have no idea what you are talking about. > Nobody with a little experience in Fedora would apply $dist tags in > changelog entries and ... almost nobody has done so for > 10 years. I have started using %dist tags in gdb.spec after 2 years of its maintenance and I find it useful during backporting for another 7 years. I have removed that %dist it in libipt.spec to be packaging guidelines compliant, it shouldn't be heavily maintained package and after all it is not the only thing I disagree with in general.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=20908
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #9) > (In reply to Sergio Durigan Junior from comment #8) > > Without this %defattr, the shlib is installed with +x (thus generating a > > rpmlint warning). Is there any other way to fix this? > > Which OS are you on? I do not see such warning: Fedora 22. GNU/Linux. > # rpmlint > /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/libipt*-1.4.2-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > libipt.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libipt.so.1.4.0 > exit.5 > libipt-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Apparently I have made a confusion about the warnings. The warning is about libipt-devel, not libipt itself. > # rpm -qlvp > /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/libipt*-1.4.2-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > | grep lib.*.so > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Sep 3 07:06 > /usr/lib64/libipt.so.1 -> libipt.so.1.4.0 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 71736 Sep 3 07:06 > /usr/lib64/libipt.so.1.4.0 The file indeed has +x here. I don't consider this good practice, but... > Besides this, such a warning from rpmlint would contradict Fedora > conventions. Should your rpmlint produce an error this would be a bug in > rpmlint. > Though its arguable whether shared libs need to be +x, for historical > reasons, > it's Fedora convention to install shared lib with +x. ... yes, it is a Fedora convention. My mistake.