Bug 1432538 - Review Request: libnsl2 - Public client interface library for NIS(YP) and NIS+
Summary: Review Request: libnsl2 - Public client interface library for NIS(YP) and NIS+
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Petr Kubat
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-03-15 15:25 UTC by Matej Mužila
Modified: 2018-03-01 15:27 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-11-01 12:22:51 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
pkubat: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Matej Mužila 2017-03-15 15:25:15 UTC
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mmuzila/libnsl2/libnsl2.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mmuzila/libnsl2/libnsl2-1.0.4-4.fc24.src.rpm

Description:
This package contains the libnsl library. This library contains                 
the public client interface for NIS(YP) and NIS+.                               
This code was formerly part of glibc, but is now standalone to                  
be able to link against TI-RPC for IPv6 support.

Fedora Account System Username: mmuzila

Comment 1 Petr Kubat 2017-03-22 08:36:15 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



===== 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]: 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)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)",
     "Unknown or generated", "LGPL (v2.1)". 13 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /tmp/1432538-libnsl2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[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: 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]: %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 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
     libnsl2-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[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: libnsl2-1.0.4-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          libnsl2-devel-1.0.4-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          libnsl2-debuginfo-1.0.4-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          libnsl2-1.0.4-4.fc24.src.rpm
libnsl2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libnsl -> glibness
libnsl2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glibc -> glib, glib c
libnsl2.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libnsl2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libnsl -> glibness
libnsl2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libnsl -> glibness
libnsl2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libnsl2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libnsl2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libnsl -> glibness
libnsl2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glibc -> glib, glib c
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libnsl2-debuginfo-1.0.4-4.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
libnsl2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libnsl -> glibness
libnsl2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glibc -> glib, glib c
libnsl2.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libnsl2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libnsl -> glibness
libnsl2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libnsl -> glibness
libnsl2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libnsl2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.



Requires
--------
libnsl2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    config(libnsl2)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libtirpc.so.3()(64bit)
    libtirpc.so.3(TIRPC_0.3.0)(64bit)
    libtirpc.so.3(TIRPC_0.3.2)(64bit)
    libtirpc.so.3(TIRPC_0.3.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libnsl2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libnsl.so.2()(64bit)
    libnsl2(x86-64)

libnsl2-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libnsl2:
    config(libnsl2)
    libnsl.so.2()(64bit)
    libnsl.so.2(LIBNSL_1.0)(64bit)
    libnsl.so.2(LIBNSL_1.0.1)(64bit)
    libnsl.so.2(LIBNSL_1.0.2)(64bit)
    libnsl.so.2(LIBNSL_PRIVATE)(64bit)
    libnsl2
    libnsl2(x86-64)

libnsl2-devel:
    libnsl2-devel
    libnsl2-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libnsl)

libnsl2-debuginfo:
    libnsl2-debuginfo
    libnsl2-debuginfo(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/thkukuk/libnsl/archive/libnsl-1.0.4.tar.gz#/libnsl-libnsl-1.0.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 09d225fd67ca5e5b24cc2126d24287f0085412711042aba80cda791a366da12c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 09d225fd67ca5e5b24cc2126d24287f0085412711042aba80cda791a366da12c


AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
  AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libnsl-libnsl-1.0.4/configure.ac:24
  AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: libnsl-libnsl-1.0.4/configure.ac:5


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1432538
Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 2 Petr Kubat 2017-03-22 08:46:58 UTC
Summary:

The package is licensed under multiple licenses according to the spec file. In that case a breakdown of which part of the package is licensed using which license must also be present in the spec file.
Alternatively licensing the package under the less permissive license (LGPLv2+) should also be ok.

The latest version of the project should be packaged. Latest upstream version is 1.0.5.

%doc should be present in the packages if possible. Consider adding ChangeLog and README to %doc.

Package should not use obsolete m4 macros. This can be fixed later but upstream should get notified about this.

Comment 3 Matej Mužila 2017-04-10 10:38:37 UTC
Hi,

I think that breakdown to multiple packages or stating which part of the package is licensed under which license is not possible, because the library (libnsl.so.2.0.0) is compiled from files under multiple licenses. I think this fits to the Mixed Source Licensing Scenario [1].

I think that the only thyng I could do about licensing is to state licensing of individual files in -devel subpackage.


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario

Comment 4 Petr Kubat 2017-04-10 11:13:27 UTC
Hi Matej,

I think you are right in that it might fit the Mixed Source Licensing scenario more than the Multiple License scenario. In that case I have no issues with the package getting through as is since it seems there is no mention of a breakdown having to be present in the guidelines.

It would however be nice to have a mention in the spec file somewhere that this is a mixed source licensed library.

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-04-10 12:25:21 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libnsl2

Comment 6 Petr Kubat 2017-11-01 12:22:51 UTC
I guess this can be closed now.

Comment 7 Christian Glombek 2018-03-01 15:18:09 UTC
Why is this pkg called libnsl2 instead of just libnsl?

Comment 8 Florian Weimer 2018-03-01 15:20:57 UTC
(In reply to Christian Glombek from comment #7)
> Why is this pkg called libnsl2 instead of just libnsl?

Because of its soname.  libnsl.so.1 is provided by glibc.

Comment 9 Christian Glombek 2018-03-01 15:27:31 UTC
Ok, thanks :) Should this be noted somewhere? (It's not a big deal, but it got me asking..)


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