Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/netronome/virtio-forwarder/epel-7-x86_64/00763079-virtio-forwarder/virtio-forwarder.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/netronome/virtio-forwarder/epel-7-x86_64/00763079-virtio-forwarder/virtio-forwarder-1.1.99.6-1.el7.src.rpm Description: I would appreciate a review of the above packaging for virtio-forwarder so that it can be included into Fedora. I am also seeking a sponsor since this is my first package. FWIW, I am the upstream maintainer. virtio-forwarder is a userspace networking application that forwards bi-directional traffic between SR-IOV virtual functions and virtio networking devices in virtual machines. virtio-forwarder implements a virtio backend driver using the DPDK's vhost-user library and services designated VFs by means of the DPDK poll mode driver (PMD) mechanism. Koji builds: f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27436916 rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27436828 Fedora Account System Username: fbotha
A newer package is available. Please rather consider it for review: Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/netronome/virtio-forwarder/epel-7-x86_64/00765665-virtio-forwarder/virtio-forwarder.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/netronome/virtio-forwarder/epel-7-x86_64/00765665-virtio-forwarder/virtio-forwarder-1.1.99.14-1.el7.src.rpm Koji builds: f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27568931 rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27569000
- Not needed: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - The Source0 should be a URL linking to the archive: Source0: https://github.com/Netronome/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - This is deprecated in Fedora: Requires: python-zmq BuildRequires: python python-sphinx python-sphinx_rtd_theme You must specify python2-devel and the python version for the packages: %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 7 Requires: python-zmq %else Requires: python2-zmq %endif BuildRequires: python2-devel python2-sphinx python2-sphinx_rtd_theme - ExclusiveArch: x86_64 aarch64 ppc64le Why no %{ix86} like dpdk? - Use %make_build instead of make - Don't: %post systemctl daemon-reload Instead use the proper Systemd scriptlets: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd %{?systemd_requires} BuildRequires: systemd %post %systemd_post virtio-forwarder.service %systemd_post vio4wd_core_scheduler.service %preun %systemd_preun virtio-forwarder.service %systemd_preun vio4wd_core_scheduler.service %postun %systemd_postun_with_restart virtio-forwarder.service %systemd_postun_with_restart vio4wd_core_scheduler.service - the %changelog entry is wrongly formatted, it should be: * Tue Jun 12 2018 Frik Botha <frik.botha> - 1.1.99.14-1 - Use the correct macros in %files: %{_bindir}/virtio-forwarder %{_mandir}/man8/virtio-forwarder.8.gz %{_libdir}/virtio-forwarder %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/default/virtioforwarder %{_unitdir}/virtio-forwarder.service %{_unitdir}/vio4wd_core_scheduler.service - Use * instead of .gz for the manpage as the compression can change in the future: %{_mandir}/man8/virtio-forwarder.8.* - You must install the LICENSE file and should install the README file: %files %doc README.md %license LICENSE
Thank you very much for the review. I adapted the spec according to your recommendations. You can view it here: SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/netronome/virtio-forwarder/fedora-27-x86_64/00775197-virtio-forwarder/virtio-forwarder.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/netronome/virtio-forwarder/fedora-27-x86_64/00775197-virtio-forwarder/virtio-forwarder-1.1.99.19-1.fc27.src.rpm Koji rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28091693 For now I have left the Source0 entry as-is. These packages map to upstream commits rather than tags, so I do not have a corresponding archive there. Do you know of alternatives that would work? I could add steps to generate it from the specific commit hash, but I'm not sure whether that would be acceptable.
(In reply to Frik Botha from comment #3) > > For now I have left the Source0 entry as-is. These packages map to upstream > > commits rather than tags, so I do not have a corresponding archive there. Do > you > know of alternatives that would work? I could add steps to generate it from > the > specific commit hash, but I'm not sure whether that would be acceptable. Just tag the corresponding commit in Git? Or publish the release on your server.
Think I'll publish it. Thanks!
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]: 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. 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)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review /virtio-forwarder/review-virtio-forwarder/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/default [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/default [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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). [?]: 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. [-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: virtio-forwarder-1.1.99.19-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm virtio-forwarder-debuginfo-1.1.99.19-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm virtio-forwarder-debugsource-1.1.99.19-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm virtio-forwarder-1.1.99.19-1.fc29.src.rpm virtio-forwarder.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vhost -> host, ghost, v host virtio-forwarder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vhost -> host, ghost, v host virtio-forwarder.src:45: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 45) virtio-forwarder.src: W: invalid-url Source0: virtio-forwarder-1.1.99.19-1.tar.bz2 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
I updated the Source0 field to point to a valid URL. You can find the new spec and source package here: SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/netronome/virtio-forwarder/fedora-27-x86_64/00777645-virtio-forwarder/virtio-forwarder.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/netronome/virtio-forwarder/fedora-27-x86_64/00777645-virtio-forwarder/virtio-forwarder-1.1.99.20-1.fc27.src.rpm Koji rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28330245 Regarding the rpmlint warnings, the first two are false positives. I also encountered "W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs" and believe that it is an rpmlint bug which is triggered by using tabs for indentation (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488146).
Package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/virtio-forwarder
Package was imported and then retired, closing ticket.