Bug 1399648 - Review Request: xl2tpd - Updated to 1.3.8 using github release
Summary: Review Request: xl2tpd - Updated to 1.3.8 using github release
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora EPEL
Classification: Fedora
Component: xl2tpd
Version: epel7
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Paul Wouters
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-11-29 13:51 UTC by Petr
Modified: 2019-10-27 00:12 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: xl2tpd-1.3.14-1.fc31 xl2tpd-1.3.14-1.fc30 xl2tpd-1.3.14-1.el7 xl2tpd-1.3.14-1.el8
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-10-04 20:04:03 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Petr 2016-11-29 13:51:23 UTC
Spec URL: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2z5R/YtwYDbSVQ/xl2tpd.spec
SRPM URL: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2z5R/YtwYDbSVQ/xl2tpd-1.3.8-1.el7.centos.src.rpm

Description: This is my first package and I need a sponsor.
xl2tpd updated to 1.3.8 using github release
only for el7.centos 
Please put it to EPEL

rpmlint xl2tpd-1.3.8-1.el7.centos.src.rpm gives the same errors as
original xl2tpd-1.3.6-8.el7.src.rpm from
yumdownloader --source xl2tpd

wich I patched with github version
https://github.com/xelerance/xl2tpd/archive/v1.3.8.tar.gz

Fedora Account System Username: petr108m

Comment 1 Yunying Sun 2016-11-30 03:18:07 UTC
SPEC & SRPM can't be get directly from the URLs above. Web displays in Russian, and requires sort of confirmation to preceed with downloading.

Also tried with wget, the SPEC downloaded looks like a html script, and the SRPM downloaded can't be recognized by rpmlint:
$ rpmlint xl2tpd-1.3.8-1.el7.centos.src.rpm 
(none): E: error while reading /home/test/yunyings/rpmreview/xl2tpd-1.3.8-1.el7.centos.src.rpm: error reading package header
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Please follow the "Upload Your Package" section at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
to make sure share spec & srpm somewhere directly accessible.

Comment 2 Petr 2016-12-01 10:22:09 UTC
(In reply to Yunying Sun from comment #1)
> SPEC & SRPM can't be get directly from the URLs above. Web displays in
> Russian, and requires sort of confirmation to preceed with downloading.
> 
> Also tried with wget, the SPEC downloaded looks like a html script, and the
> SRPM downloaded can't be recognized by rpmlint:
> $ rpmlint xl2tpd-1.3.8-1.el7.centos.src.rpm 
> (none): E: error while reading
> /home/test/yunyings/rpmreview/xl2tpd-1.3.8-1.el7.centos.src.rpm: error
> reading package header
> 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
> 
> Please follow the "Upload Your Package" section at:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
> to make sure share spec & srpm somewhere directly accessible.

https://volafile.io/get/mWUhP6Idw65t4/xl2tpd.spec
https://volafile.io/get/VM5EP6gdw67g4/xl2tpd-1.3.8-1.el7.centos.src.rpm

Comment 3 Yunying Sun 2016-12-02 06:35:19 UTC
(this is an un-official review)

Besides inline comments(marked with yunying:), here are some additional:
1. "Group:" is not needed.
2. "rm -rf %{buildroot}" should be removed.
3. replace following "xl2tpd" in SPEC file with "%name".

******************************************************************

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
> yunying: LICENSE file contains text of license itself, so should be put under "%license".

- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/xl2tpd
  See:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
> yunying: Naming conflict issue should be fixed.


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

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[ ]: 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: "Public domain", "Unknown or generated", "GPL
     (unversioned/unknown version)". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/test/yunyings/rpmreview/review-
     tpm2-tss/1399648_xl2tpd/review-xl2tpd/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc, /usr/share/man, /var,
     /etc/ppp, /usr, /var/run, /usr/bin, /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib,
     /usr/share, /usr/share/man/man8, /usr/lib/systemd,
     /usr/share/man/man5, /usr/sbin, /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/man/man1,
     /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
> yunying: Remove "rm -rf %{buildroot}", it's not needed.

[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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 8 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
> yunying: use "%make_build" instead of "make".

[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[ ]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate
[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]: 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: 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: xl2tpd-1.3.8-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
          xl2tpd-1.3.8-1.el7.centos.src.rpm
xl2tpd.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3.8-1 ['1.3.8-1.el7.centos', '1.3.8-1.centos']
xl2tpd.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
xl2tpd.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/xl2tpd/l2tp-secrets 0600L
xl2tpd.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/xl2tpd-1.3.8/LICENSE
xl2tpd.x86_64: E: non-readable /var/run/xl2tpd/l2tp-control 0600L
xl2tpd.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ppp/chap-secrets.sample 0600L
xl2tpd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xl2tpd-control
xl2tpd.src:66: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/tmpfiles.d/
xl2tpd.src:67: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/tmpfiles.d/%{name}.conf
xl2tpd.src:105: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/tmpfiles.d/%{name}.conf
> yunying: use %{_libdir} instead of hardcoded-library-path.

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 3 warnings.

Comment 4 Yunying Sun 2016-12-02 07:25:42 UTC
Besides, you may need to notify upstream with the "Free Software Fundation Address" issue found by rpmlint:
xl2tpd.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/xl2tpd-1.3.8/LICENSE

License seems need update.

Refer to:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address

Comment 5 Petr 2016-12-02 14:10:27 UTC
I checked official src, rebuilt in mock for el7.centos
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/xl2tpd/1.3.8/1.fc26/src/xl2tpd-1.3.8-1.fc26.src.rpm

Rpmlint 
xl2tpd.src:55: W: setup-not-quiet
xl2tpd.src:74: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/tmpfiles.d/
xl2tpd.src:75: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/tmpfiles.d/%{name}.conf
xl2tpd.src:113: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/tmpfiles.d/%{name}.conf
xl2tpd.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/xelerance/xl2tpd/archive/xl2tpd-1.3.8.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
xl2tpd.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3.8-1 ['1.3.8-1.el7.centos', '1.3.8-1.centos']
xl2tpd.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
xl2tpd.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/xl2tpd/l2tp-secrets 0600L
xl2tpd.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/xl2tpd-1.3.8/LICENSE
xl2tpd.x86_64: E: non-readable /var/run/xl2tpd/l2tp-control 0600L
xl2tpd.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ppp/chap-secrets.sample 0600L
xl2tpd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xl2tpd-control
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 5 warnings.

spec:
incorrect global commit, should be 
global commit cec1ebe1523bf248f134647dd6030a333d93e19b

# upstream isn't using proper names, we manually rename v-VERSION.tar.gz to xl2tpd-VERSION.tar.gz
Source0: https://github.com/xelerance/%{name}/archive/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
  
Also contains your marked moments
Besides inline comments(marked with yunying:), here are some additional:
1. "Group:" is not needed.
2. "rm -rf %{buildroot}" should be removed.
3. replace following "xl2tpd" in SPEC file with "%name".

yunying: LICENSE file contains text of license itself, so should be put under "%license".
> yunying: use "%make_build" instead of "make".
> yunying: use %{_libdir} instead of hardcoded-library-path.

How did they pass??

--
I requested for LICENSE

Comment 6 Paul Wouters 2016-12-02 14:29:25 UTC
huh?

xl2tpd is a package I have maintained for many years already in fedora and epel.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/xl2tpd/

1.3.8 package was released in august 2016 in fedora. I will update the el6/epel7 versions too.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2019-09-25 02:29:48 UTC
FEDORA-2019-e7fbe8e2a2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-e7fbe8e2a2

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2019-09-25 02:30:18 UTC
FEDORA-2019-f2592b59b1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f2592b59b1

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2019-09-25 02:30:46 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2019-67a9c13b38 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-67a9c13b38

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2019-09-26 01:48:58 UTC
xl2tpd-1.3.14-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-67a9c13b38

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2019-09-26 02:48:12 UTC
xl2tpd-1.3.14-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f2592b59b1

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2019-09-26 02:55:39 UTC
xl2tpd-1.3.14-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-e7fbe8e2a2

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2019-10-04 20:04:03 UTC
xl2tpd-1.3.14-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2019-10-04 21:23:52 UTC
xl2tpd-1.3.14-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2019-10-10 15:29:15 UTC
xl2tpd-1.3.14-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2019-10-10 16:45:17 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2019-3618456c8e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-3618456c8e

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2019-10-11 23:27:38 UTC
xl2tpd-1.3.14-1.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-3618456c8e

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2019-10-27 00:12:23 UTC
xl2tpd-1.3.14-1.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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