Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/osmo-fl2k/osmo-fl2k.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/osmo-fl2k/osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-0.1.20180501gitdf33203d.fc29.src.rpm Description: Turns FL2000-based USB 3.0 to VGA adapters into low cost DACs Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/osmo-fl2k/osmo-fl2k.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/osmo-fl2k/osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-0.1.20190501gitdf33203d.fc29.src.rpm
Found issues: * The package produces strange named so library /usr/lib64/libosmo-fl2k.so.0.1git. I think numbers are expected to be in so version name, git should not be present. * No release tarball URL is specified. Spec file should at least contain link to the source code repository, which is also missing. It is not clear where provided source comes from. * Also, binaries and libraries should not be part of single package, libs subpackage should be used [1]. * File /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/10-osmo-fl2k.rules is shipped, but its directory is not owned by package or required by the package (systemd-udev or kexec-tools). 1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_mixed_use_packages
(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #2) Thanks for the review. > Found issues: > * The package produces strange named so library > /usr/lib64/libosmo-fl2k.so.0.1git. I think numbers are expected to be in so > version name, git should not be present. > * No release tarball URL is specified. Spec file should at least contain > link to the source code repository, which is also missing. It is not clear > where provided source comes from. > * Also, binaries and libraries should not be part of single package, libs > subpackage should be used [1]. Hopefully all fixed. > * File /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/10-osmo-fl2k.rules is shipped, but its > directory is not owned by package or required by the package (systemd-udev > or kexec-tools). > I think this is not needed [1] [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_the_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/osmo-fl2k/osmo-fl2k.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/osmo-fl2k/osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-0.2.20190501gitdf33203d.fc29.src.rpm
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #3) > (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #2) > > Hopefully all fixed. > > > * File /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/10-osmo-fl2k.rules is shipped, but its > > directory is not owned by package or required by the package (systemd-udev > > or kexec-tools). > > > I think this is not needed [1] > > [1] > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_the_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_ > to_function In that example, it says exactly what I mentioned. You might not use Requires, but still have to own that directory in your package. Unowned directory is not permitted, even for optional content. Solution: the evolution package should own the /usr/share/gtk-doc directory. There is no need to add an explicit Requires on gtk-doc solely for the directory ownership. Also, now we have separate libs subpackage, but it has not license file inside and does not depend on any package that has it. I suggest moving %license to libs, it should be required explicitly from other subpackages then. Licensecheck also mentions other licenses than GPLv2+: GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later) ------------------------------------------------- osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-df33203d/src/getopt/getopt.c osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-df33203d/src/getopt/getopt.h GPL (v3 or later) ----------------- osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-df33203d/cmake/Modules/Version.cmake osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-df33203d/include/rds_mod.h osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-df33203d/src/rds_mod.c getopt seems not used by our compilation, but rds_mod is. I think Licenses: GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ should be used.
(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #5) > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #3) > > (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #2) > > > > Hopefully all fixed. > > > > > * File /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/10-osmo-fl2k.rules is shipped, but its > > > directory is not owned by package or required by the package (systemd-udev > > > or kexec-tools). > > > > > I think this is not needed [1] > > > > [1] > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > > #_the_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_ > > to_function > > In that example, it says exactly what I mentioned. You might not use > Requires, but still have to own that directory in your package. Unowned > directory is not permitted, even for optional content. > > Solution: the evolution package should own the /usr/share/gtk-doc directory. > There is no need to add an explicit Requires on gtk-doc solely for the > directory ownership. > added udev requirement > Also, now we have separate libs subpackage, but it has not license file > inside and does not depend on any package that has it. I suggest moving > %license to libs, it should be required explicitly from other subpackages > then. > added license to both, move docs to libs > Licensecheck also mentions other licenses than GPLv2+: > > GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later) > ------------------------------------------------- > osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-df33203d/src/getopt/getopt.c > osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-df33203d/src/getopt/getopt.h > > GPL (v3 or later) > ----------------- > osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-df33203d/cmake/Modules/Version.cmake > osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-df33203d/include/rds_mod.h > osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-df33203d/src/rds_mod.c > > getopt seems not used by our compilation, but rds_mod is. I think Licenses: > GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ should be used. I think it should be relicensed upstream to GPLv3+, but for now added both Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/osmo-fl2k/osmo-fl2k.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/osmo-fl2k/osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.fc29.src.rpm
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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/1707080-osmo-fl2k/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in osmo- fl2k , osmo-fl2k-libs , osmo-fl2k-devel osmo-fl2k should version require osmo-fl2k-libs. It would not require another licence copy that way. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: 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. [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]: 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: osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.fc31.x86_64.rpm osmo-fl2k-libs-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.fc31.x86_64.rpm osmo-fl2k-devel-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.fc31.x86_64.rpm osmo-fl2k-debuginfo-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.fc31.x86_64.rpm osmo-fl2k-debugsource-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.fc31.x86_64.rpm osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.fc31.src.rpm osmo-fl2k.x86_64: W: no-documentation osmo-fl2k.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fl2k_file osmo-fl2k.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fl2k_fm osmo-fl2k.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fl2k_tcp osmo-fl2k.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fl2k_test osmo-fl2k-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation osmo-fl2k.src: W: invalid-url Source0: osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-df33203d.tar.gz 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: osmo-fl2k-libs-debuginfo-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.fc31.x86_64.rpm osmo-fl2k-debuginfo-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.fc31.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- osmo-fl2k (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libosmo-fl2k.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd-udev osmo-fl2k-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) osmo-fl2k-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libosmo-fl2k.so.0()(64bit) osmo-fl2k-libs(x86-64) osmo-fl2k-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): osmo-fl2k-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- osmo-fl2k: osmo-fl2k osmo-fl2k(x86-64) osmo-fl2k-libs: libosmo-fl2k.so.0()(64bit) osmo-fl2k-libs osmo-fl2k-libs(x86-64) osmo-fl2k-devel: osmo-fl2k-devel osmo-fl2k-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libosmo-fl2k) osmo-fl2k-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) osmo-fl2k-debuginfo osmo-fl2k-debuginfo(x86-64) osmo-fl2k-debugsource: osmo-fl2k-debugsource osmo-fl2k-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1707080 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, PHP, Python, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/osmo-fl2k
osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-ba680ebfca
osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-e586e853ec
osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.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-ba680ebfca
osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-e586e853ec
osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
osmo-fl2k-0.1.1-0.3.20190501gitdf33203d.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.