Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/netperf/netperf.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/netperf/netperf-2.7.0-1.20210713git3bc455b.fc35.src.rpm Description: Netperf is a benchmark that can be used to measure the performance of many different types of networking. It provides tests for both unidirectional throughput, and end-to-end latency. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=71851183
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. This is probably invalid. - Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if package has .info files. Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in netperf See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_texinfo - src/dhcp.c is licensed under 2-clause BSD license. License tag should contain MIT and BSD, not just MIT. ===== 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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "curl License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Expat License [generated file]", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/1982011-netperf/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. [-]: 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 993280 bytes in 33 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]: 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). [x]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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 [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1064960 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: netperf-2.7.0-1.20210713git3bc455b.fc35.x86_64.rpm netperf-debuginfo-2.7.0-1.20210713git3bc455b.fc35.x86_64.rpm netperf-debugsource-2.7.0-1.20210713git3bc455b.fc35.x86_64.rpm netperf-2.7.0-1.20210713git3bc455b.fc35.src.rpm netperf.src:70: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog netperf.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: %{forgeurl}/pull/63.patch 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: netperf-debuginfo-2.7.0-1.20210713git3bc455b.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/HewlettPackard/netperf/archive/3bc455b23f901dae377ca0a558e1e32aa56b31c4/netperf-3bc455b23f901dae377ca0a558e1e32aa56b31c4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fc2350405956774f5993a0486d87245822d8aef71a0421af944cb91e8adf5422 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fc2350405956774f5993a0486d87245822d8aef71a0421af944cb91e8adf5422 Requires -------- netperf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libsctp.so.1()(64bit) libsctp.so.1(VERS_1)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) netperf-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): netperf-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- netperf: netperf netperf(x86-64) netperf-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) netperf-debuginfo netperf-debuginfo(x86-64) netperf-debugsource: netperf-debugsource netperf-debugsource(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: netperf-3bc455b23f901dae377ca0a558e1e32aa56b31c4/configure.ac:19 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1982011 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Perl, Haskell, Python, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
I forgot also netperf.service systemd file should be provided for easy running of netserver. It can be used also without it, but would simplify testing.
Thanks! The disttag thing is a side effect of using rpmautospec: https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/pull-request/417 The texinfo thing looks like a bug in fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725569 Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/netperf/netperf.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/netperf/netperf-2.7.0-1.20210713git3bc455b.fc35.src.rpm Changelog: - Updated license - Added systemd service for netserver
Okay, seems good to go. Not sure %autochangelog feature is available already. There seems to be opposition to it and it is not ready for Fedora 35 [1]. I know I already accepted some your reviews using %autochangelog, but it seems it should be removed for now [1]. Original change introducing it were never finished in f34. My local builds were successful on your spec file, but you may require to return to classic Release: with %{?dist} tag. I think you will be able to adjust spec for production build. 1. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/109
Wait. Your package uses %systemd_post etc., but does not use %{?systemd_requires} to require systemd during upgrades. It seems that case is well covered and it makes sense to work even without systemd. Not necessary it seems, but would solve unowned %_unitdir. Another recommendation would be using unprivileged user for netperf service. It uses root user, which is dangerous. I haven't found whether it is mandatory, I think it should be therefore just recommended. Consult user and groups [1] in Guidelines. I think at minimum DynamicUser=yes feature of systemd should be used to run non-privileged service. I just guess it does not require special privileges, capabilities(7) would provide ability to grant just few required permissions in the other case. 1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UsersAndGroups/
I just found in [1] that %{?systemd_ordering} might be useful without explicit dependency. It would allow installation without systemd, but with correct order if installed. 1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_dependencies_on_the_systemd_package
Thanks! I think %autochangelog is fine per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpmautospec and it seems to work properly in F34 for other packages I have. I'll have a look at those systemd macros and see if I can use DynamicUser=yes in the service. $ fedpkg request-repo netperf 1982011 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36036
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/netperf
FEDORA-2021-088c69a486 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-088c69a486
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-941089b392 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-941089b392
FEDORA-2021-088c69a486 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-088c69a486 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-088c69a486 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-941089b392 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-941089b392 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-088c69a486 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-941089b392 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.