Bug 1317184 - Review Request: erlang-fast_yaml - An Erlang wrapper for libyaml "C" library
Review Request: erlang-fast_yaml - An Erlang wrapper for libyaml "C" library
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Randy Barlow
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 1312517
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2016-03-12 16:42 EST by Randy Barlow
Modified: 2016-03-31 11:02 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: erlang-fast_yaml-1.0.2-2.fc25
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2016-03-31 11:02:02 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
jeremy: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Randy Barlow 2016-03-12 16:42:41 EST
Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-fast_yaml.spec
SRPM URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-fast_yaml-1.0.2-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: P1 YAML is an Erlang wrapper for libyaml "C" library.
Fedora Account System Username: rbarlow

This is a package rename from erlang-p1_yaml, corresponding with the same rename upstream.

Comment 1 Peter Lemenkov 2016-03-16 06:44:27 EDT
Totally missed that one - you should remove "%global debug_package %{nil}" because this package contains so-library and therefore should have debuginfo sub-package.
Comment 2 Randy Barlow 2016-03-18 08:59:11 EDT
Hello Peter! I've added the debuginfo package here:

Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-fast_yaml.spec
SRPM URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-fast_yaml-1.0.2-2.fc25.src.rpm
Comment 3 Jeremy Cline 2016-03-26 21:00:05 EDT
Note that although there are issues in this review (namely that the package failed to install) I was not able to reproduce this error outside of fedora-review.

Package Review

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

- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

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

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jcline/devel/fedora-
[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
[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.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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.
[-]: 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
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[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.

Checking: erlang-fast_yaml-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libyaml -> Libya
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libyaml -> Libya
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so
erlang-fast_yaml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) yaml -> yam, yams, yawl
erlang-fast_yaml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yaml -> yam, yams, yawl
erlang-fast_yaml.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libyaml -> Libya
erlang-fast_yaml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libyaml -> Libya
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

rpmlint on installed packages (failed in the mock root during the fedora-review, worked fine manually):
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libyaml -> Libya
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libyaml -> Libya
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_alloc_binary
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_free
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_make_binary
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_make_atom
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_alloc
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_make_uint
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_make_double
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_make_long
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_make_list_cell
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_make_tuple
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_get_uint
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_make_atom_len
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_make_badarg
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_inspect_iolist_as_binary
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_get_list_cell
erlang-fast_yaml.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so enif_make_list
erlang-fast_yaml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) yaml -> yam, yams, yawl
erlang-fast_yaml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yaml -> yam, yams, yawl
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 21 warnings.

erlang-fast_yaml-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

erlang-fast_yaml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Unversioned so-files
erlang-fast_yaml: /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_yaml-1.0.2/priv/lib/fast_yaml.so

Source checksums
https://github.com/processone/fast_yaml/archive/1.0.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 033db55b192ed1fdb6ab33e6866dac3f9d1de04a5e3aa4cc51fccb859b53569e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 033db55b192ed1fdb6ab33e6866dac3f9d1de04a5e3aa4cc51fccb859b53569e

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1317184
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
Comment 4 Jeremy Cline 2016-03-26 21:03:05 EDT
One last thing to note is that you could use the erlang macros in the %install section rather than using '%{_libdir}/erlang/lib/'.

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