Bug 1680140 - Review Request: nanomsg - a socket library that provides several common communication patterns
Summary: Review Request: nanomsg - a socket library that provides several common commu...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-02-22 19:53 UTC by Troy Dawson
Modified: 2019-02-27 17:24 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-02-27 17:24:06 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Troy Dawson 2019-02-22 19:53:26 UTC
Spec URL: https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/gateway/nanomsg.spec
SRPM URL: https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/gateway/nanomsg-1.1.5-1.fc30.src.rpm
Description: The nanomsg library is a simple high-performance implementation of several "scalability protocols". These scalability protocols are light-weight messaging protocols which can be used to solve a number of very common messaging patterns, such as request/reply, publish/subscribe, surveyor/respondent, and so forth. These protocols can run over a variety of transports such as TCP, UNIX sockets, and even WebSocket.
Fedora Account System Username: tdawson

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-02-23 17:15:08 UTC
 - The description should be split into multiple lines to stay below 80 characters per line.

 - Don't glob the major SONAME version to avoid unintentional SONAME bump:

%{_libdir}/libnanomsg.so.*

 - The license file must be installed with %license not %doc:

%license COPYING

 - Use a better name for your archive:

Source0:        https://github.com/nanomsg/nanomsg/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

 - Consider making a separate noarch subpackage for the docs

 - Capitalize the summary



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 COPYING is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 1669120 bytes in 126 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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: "*No copyright* Expat License", "Expat License", "Unknown or
     generated". 82 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/nanomsg/review-
     nanomsg/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.
[-]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nanomsg-
     debuginfo , nanomsg-debugsource
[?]: 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
     architectures.
[-]: %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:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1740800 bytes in /usr/share
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nanomsg-1.1.5-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          nanomsg-devel-1.1.5-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          nanomsg-debuginfo-1.1.5-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          nanomsg-debugsource-1.1.5-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          nanomsg-1.1.5-1.fc31.src.rpm
nanomsg.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C a socket library that provides several common communication patterns
nanomsg.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability
nanomsg.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The nanomsg library is a simple high-performance implementation of several "scalability protocols". These scalability protocols are light-weight messaging protocols which can be used to solve a number of very common messaging patterns, such as request/reply, publish/subscribe, surveyor/respondent, and so forth. These protocols can run over a variety of transports such as TCP, UNIX sockets, and even WebSocket.
nanomsg.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C a socket library that provides several common communication patterns
nanomsg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability
nanomsg.src: E: description-line-too-long C The nanomsg library is a simple high-performance implementation of several "scalability protocols". These scalability protocols are light-weight messaging protocols which can be used to solve a number of very common messaging patterns, such as request/reply, publish/subscribe, surveyor/respondent, and so forth. These protocols can run over a variety of transports such as TCP, UNIX sockets, and even WebSocket.
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.

Comment 2 Troy Dawson 2019-02-25 17:51:20 UTC
Thank you for finding those problems. The spec and src.rpm have been updated to fix these issues.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
>  - The description should be split into multiple lines to stay below 80
> characters per line.
> 

- Description has been reformted into multiple lines, each below 80 characters

>  - Don't glob the major SONAME version to avoid unintentional SONAME bump:
> 
> %{_libdir}/libnanomsg.so.*
> 

- major SONAME version is not globed anymore
%{_libdir}/libnanomsg.so.5*

>  - The license file must be installed with %license not %doc:
> 
> %license COPYING
> 

- good catch, fixed

>  - Use a better name for your archive:
> 
> Source0:       
> https://github.com/nanomsg/nanomsg/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.
> gz
> 

- Source0 has been updated.
-- I had tried to find the correct URL for that but it kept failing for me.  I must have had a typo.  Anyway, thank you for the link.

>  - Consider making a separate noarch subpackage for the docs
> 

- Made a seperate subpackage for the docs
-- the docs subpackage is not noarch.  Because the docs are compiled, it is possible for them to be different between arches.
-- I did try the docs as a noarch, but it failed on a scratch build on koji due to the files not matching between arches.

>  - Capitalize the summary
> 

- Capitalized the summary

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-02-27 15:08:56 UTC
Package approved.

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2019-02-27 16:18:36 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nanomsg

Comment 5 Troy Dawson 2019-02-27 17:24:06 UTC
Package built and in Rawhide.


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