vdr-live - An interactive web interface for VDR SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/vdr-live-0.2.0-3.20120218git.fc17.src.rpm?a=_AXJZdDdepE Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/vdr-live.spec?a=0ZEIUtCcMVQ rpmlint output: rpmlint vdr-live-0.2.0-3.20120218git.fc17.src.rpm vdr-live.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-live.src: W: invalid-url Source0: vdr-plugin-live_0.2.0.99+cvs20120218.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint vdr-live-0.2.0-3.20120218git.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-live.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/vdr-live-0.2.0-4.20120325git.fc17.src.rpm?a=ikviaC9vop0 Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/vdr-live.spec?a=OWYG9ZP9WDM rpmlint output: rpmlint vdr-live-0.2.0-4.20120325git.fc17.src.rpm vdr-live.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-live.src: W: invalid-url Source0: vdr-plugin-live_0.2.0.99+cvs20120325.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint vdr-live-0.2.0-4.20120325git.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-live.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/vdr-live-0.2.0-5/vdr-live.spec?a=91O0a04-Aas SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/vdr-live-0.2.0-5/vdr-live-0.2.0-5.20120325git.fc17.src.rpm?a=FfDeuoBw73M %changelog * Mon Aug 6 2012 Martin Gansser <linux4martin> - 0.2.0-5.20120325git - removed Buildroot I need a reviewer !
Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/vdr-live-0.2.0-6/vdr-live.spec?a=NDVAg6QZJm8 SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/vdr-live-0.2.0-6/vdr-live-0.2.0-6.20120325git.fc17.src.rpm?a=0ljFno8hDmM %changelog * Mon Aug 6 2012 Martin Gansser <linux4martin> - 0.2.0-6.20120325git - added live.conf file I need a reviewer !
Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/vdr-live-0.2.0-7/vdr-live.spec?a=DU5oaQGHh8A SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/vdr-live-0.2.0-7/vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc18.src.rpm?a=o5OrQ5GVNUI %changelog * Tue Oct 9 2012 Martin Gansser <linux4martin> - 0.2.0-7.20121009git - added vdr-1.7.28 compile fix - added API patch version >= 1.7.30 - rebuild for Fedora 18. can someone do the review ?
I'm doing an informal review. So whoever does the actual review please let me know whatever i did wrong. I used fedora-review to generate the report and made some manual checks. First the issues: ======= Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.21 starting... State Changed: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled State Changed: start Mock Version: 1.1.21 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.21 State Changed: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/tumu/Fedora-Project/Review/vdr-live/i686/vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm /home/tumu/Fedora-Project/Review/vdr-live/i686/vdr-live-debuginfo-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-16-i386/root/', 'install', '/home/tumu/Fedora-Project/Review/vdr-live/i686/vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm', '/home/tumu/Fedora-Project/Review/vdr-live/i686/vdr-live-debuginfo-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Setting up Install Process Error: Package: vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686 (/vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686) Requires: libpcre.so.1 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem Error: Package: vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686 (/vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686) Requires: vdr(abi)(x86-32) = 1.7.31 Available: vdr-1.6.0-41.fc16.i686 (fedora) vdr(abi)(x86-32) = 1.6.0 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed Rpmlint ------- Checking: vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm vdr-live-debuginfo-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc18.src.rpm vdr-live.src: W: invalid-url Source0: vdr-plugin-live_0.2.0.99+cvs20121009.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Now the review as generated along with manual checks: Package Review ============== Key: [x] = OK [!] = Fail [-] = OK,Not applicable [ ] = Not Checked Issues: ======= [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [ ]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tumu/Fedora- Project/Review/vdr-live/i686/review-vdr-live/licensecheck.txt [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) [ ]: Package is not relocatable. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: 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) [ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0 (0001-Compile-fix-for-vdr-1.7.28.patch) Patch1 (live-1.7.30-fhs.diff) Source0 (vdr-plugin- live_0.2.0.99+cvs20121009.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Requires -------- vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(vdr-live) = 0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19 libc.so.6 libcxxtools.so.8 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libpcre.so.1 libpcrecpp.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libtntnet.so.10 rtld(GNU_HASH) vdr(abi)(x86-32) = 1.7.31 vdr-live-debuginfo-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm: config(vdr-live) = 0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19 libvdr-live.so.1.7.31 vdr-live = 0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19 vdr-live(x86-32) = 0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19 vdr-live-debuginfo-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm: vdr-live-debuginfo = 0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19 vdr-live-debuginfo(x86-32) = 0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 Buildroot used: fedora-16-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -p -r -n vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc18.src.rpm
The package also builds into x86_64 architecture.I reviewed only i686.
Sourav, you only filled out half of the review form.
I will post the review again with whatever remains unfulfilled.
Sourav, you should complete the review, not paste the output with empty items.
Here is the full review with all the manual checks done. If I made any mistake please let me know. However, this is an *informal* Review. I am not registered with the packagers group, so just wait for a reviewer to approve it. ---------------------- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = OK [!] = Fail [-] = Not Applicable Issues: ======= [!]: Package does not install properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tumu/Fedora- Project/Review/vdr-live/i686/review-vdr-live/licensecheck.txt [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment). [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [-]: Package functions as described. Note: Package does not install due to failed dependencies [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0 (0001-Compile-fix-for-vdr-1.7.28.patch) Patch1 (live-1.7.30-fhs.diff) Source0 (vdr-plugin- live_0.2.0.99+cvs20121009.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.21 starting... State Changed: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled State Changed: start Mock Version: 1.1.21 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.21 State Changed: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/tumu/Fedora-Project/Review/vdr-live/i686/vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm /home/tumu/Fedora-Project/Review/vdr-live/i686/vdr-live-debuginfo-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-16-i386/root/', 'install', '/home/tumu/Fedora-Project/Review/vdr-live/i686/vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm', '/home/tumu/Fedora-Project/Review/vdr-live/i686/vdr-live-debuginfo-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Setting up Install Process Error: Package: vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686 (/vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686) Requires: libpcre.so.1 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem Error: Package: vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686 (/vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686) Requires: vdr(abi)(x86-32) = 1.7.31 Available: vdr-1.6.0-41.fc16.i686 (fedora) vdr(abi)(x86-32) = 1.6.0 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Rpmlint ------- Checking: vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm vdr-live-debuginfo-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc18.src.rpm vdr-live.src: W: invalid-url Source0: vdr-plugin-live_0.2.0.99+cvs20121009.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(vdr-live) = 0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19 libc.so.6 libcxxtools.so.8 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libpcre.so.1 libpcrecpp.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libtntnet.so.10 rtld(GNU_HASH) vdr(abi)(x86-32) = 1.7.31 vdr-live-debuginfo-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm: config(vdr-live) = 0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19 libvdr-live.so.1.7.31 vdr-live = 0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19 vdr-live(x86-32) = 0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19 vdr-live-debuginfo-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm: vdr-live-debuginfo = 0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19 vdr-live-debuginfo(x86-32) = 0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 Buildroot used: fedora-16-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -p -r -n vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc18.src.rpm
cannot reproduce the installation errors with a lokal review with: [martin@localhost tmp]$ fedora-review -m fedora-18-x86_64-rpmfusion_free -n vdr-live
I do not know why installation errors are not reproduced. I used: [tumu@tumu i686]$ fedora-review -p -r -n vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc18.src.rpm Also another problem with your package is that installation fails in it due to dependencies. [tumu@tumu i686]$ rpm -ivh vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686.rpm error: Failed dependencies: libcxxtools.so.8 is needed by vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686 libpcre.so.1 is needed by vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686 libtntnet.so.10 is needed by vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686 vdr(abi)(x86-32) = 1.7.31 is needed by vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc19.i686 Please Note I used koji to build and the build was done on rawhide.
Sourav: """ Buildroot used: fedora-16-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -p -r -n vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc18.src.rpm """ I wonder how you built it though. See fedora-review's "-m".
I built it using koji first then used the prebuilt binaries to review.
%{vdr_apiversion} is used through the spec, but never defined. Interesting! Esp. Requires: vdr(abi)%{?_isa} = %{vdr_apiversion}
(In reply to comment #15) > %{vdr_apiversion} is used through the spec, but never defined. Interesting! > Esp. > Requires: vdr(abi)%{?_isa} = %{vdr_apiversion} good morning Matthias, and what is this ? [martin@localhost ~]$ cat -v /etc/rpm/macros.vdr |grep vdr_apiversion %vdr_apiversion %vdr_pcvar apiversion [martin@localhost ~]$ rpm -qf /etc/rpm/macros.vdr vdr-devel-1.7.31-1.fc18.x86_64
Ah, I must have skipped that build requirement. Sorry for the noise.
(In reply to comment #14) > I built it using koji first then used the prebuilt binaries to review. you should use for q.e. for a local review the following command, take the flags -m fedora-18-x86_64 or -m fedora-rawhide for the target arch $ fedora-review -p -r -m fedora-rawhide -n vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc18.src.rpm are you sponsored an can you finish the review ?
(In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #14) > > I built it using koji first then used the prebuilt binaries to review. > > you should use for q.e. for a local review the following command, take the > flags > -m fedora-18-x86_64 or -m fedora-rawhide for the target arch > > $ fedora-review -p -r -m fedora-rawhide -n > vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc18.src.rpm I will take a look into it surely. > > are you sponsored an can you finish the review ? I mentioned earlier that I am not with the packagers group- so I am not sponsored. Am doing informal reviews to get sponsored.
(In reply to comment #18) > you should use for q.e. for a local review the following command, take the > flags > -m fedora-18-x86_64 or -m fedora-rawhide for the target arch > > $ fedora-review -p -r -m fedora-rawhide -n > vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc18.src.rpm [tumu@tumu x86_64]$ fedora-review -p -r -m fedora-18-x86_64 -n vdr-live-0.2.0-7.20121009git.fc18.src.rpm Init command returned error code 1 Installing built package(s) Mock command returned error code 1 Install command returned error code 1 Mock command returned error code 1 Cannot run mock --copyin: ERROR: Could not find required config file: /etc/mock/fedora-18-x86_64.cfg Exception down the road...(logs in ~/.cache/fedora-review.log)
Now that I already took a closer look, I'll do the review. copied from buildlog: cpio: vdr-plugin-live-0.2.0.99+cvs20121009/css/styles.cpp: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: vdr-plugin-live-0.2.0.99+cvs20121009/javascript/treeview.cpp: Cannot stat: No such file or directory 2408 blocks shouldn't be a problem, right? Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries. Those #Fixme's in the spec are intentional, right? I'd also appreciate it, if you could list BuildRequirements one per line. I find it much more readable! javascript dir comes apparently from a different project, license is ASL 2.0 vdr-live is licensed under GPLv2+, which is incompatible with ASL 2.0 according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses buildutils pot2i18n.pl is copied from somewhere else, Readme is referenced but missing. live/js/mootools is copied from somewhere else, my educated guess, it comes from http://mootools.net/ License MIT (which is compatible with GPLv2+ You should unbundle that stuff, at least that javascript piece. In this way, IMHO, it can't be packaged in one package.
(In reply to comment #21) > Now that I already took a closer look, I'll do the review. > > > copied from buildlog: > cpio: vdr-plugin-live-0.2.0.99+cvs20121009/css/styles.cpp: Cannot stat: No > such file or directory > cpio: vdr-plugin-live-0.2.0.99+cvs20121009/javascript/treeview.cpp: Cannot > stat: No such file or directory > 2408 blocks > > shouldn't be a problem, right? agree > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries. > > > Those #Fixme's in the spec are intentional, right? yes > I'd also appreciate it, if you could list BuildRequirements one per line. > I find it much more readable! done > javascript dir comes apparently from a different project, license is ASL 2.0 > vdr-live is licensed under GPLv2+, which is incompatible with ASL 2.0 > according to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses > > buildutils pot2i18n.pl is copied from somewhere else, Readme is referenced > but missing. > > live/js/mootools is copied from somewhere else, my educated guess, it comes > from http://mootools.net/ > License MIT (which is compatible with GPLv2+ > > > You should unbundle that stuff, at least that javascript piece. In this way, > IMHO, it can't be packaged in one package. hmm, why does zoneminder-1.25.0-9.fc18 comes with bundled mootools ? rpm -ql zoneminder |grep tools /usr/share/zoneminder/www/js/mootools.ext.js /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools/mootools /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools/mootools/mootools-core-1.3.2-nc.js /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools/mootools/mootools-core-1.3.2-yc.js /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools/mootools/mootools-core.js /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools/mootools/mootools-more-1.3.2.1-nc.js /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools/mootools/mootools-more-1.3.2.1-yc.js /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools/mootools/mootools-more.js i need
(In reply to comment #22) > > javascript dir comes apparently from a different project, license is ASL 2.0 > > vdr-live is licensed under GPLv2+, which is incompatible with ASL 2.0 > > according to > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses > > ^^^^^^^ Incompatible licenses is a blocker! That is much harder than mootools-bundling. > > buildutils pot2i18n.pl is copied from somewhere else, Readme is referenced > > but missing. > > You should ask upstream regarding this. pot2i18n.pl is just required for building, so this is not the huge problem here. It's license won't even affect the license of the package at all, as long it's a free license. > > live/js/mootools is copied from somewhere else, my educated guess, it comes > > from http://mootools.net/ > > License MIT (which is compatible with GPLv2+ > > > > > > You should unbundle that stuff, at least that javascript piece. In this way, > > IMHO, it can't be packaged in one package. > > hmm, why does zoneminder-1.25.0-9.fc18 comes with bundled mootools ? > I can't say, why zoneminder.... I agree, that especially JavaScript libraries (such as jQuery) are a problem in general. At least, your package license must also include MIT such as License: GPLv2+ and MIT It seems, it's an unspoken law, bundling JavaScript libs might be ok, as long as licenses fit together. You should try to talk to upstream and ask them to unbundle that. In usual cases, upstream is more cooperative, when submitting patches together with the request ;-) When packaging in a good style, you will also list (in the spec), which parts are GPL and which is MIT licensed. > rpm -ql zoneminder |grep tools > /usr/share/zoneminder/www/js/mootools.ext.js > /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools > /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools/mootools > /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools/mootools/mootools-core-1.3.2-nc.js > /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools/mootools/mootools-core-1.3.2-yc.js > /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools/mootools/mootools-core.js > /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools/mootools/mootools-more-1.3.2.1-nc.js > /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools/mootools/mootools-more-1.3.2.1-yc.js > /usr/share/zoneminder/www/tools/mootools/mootools-more.js > > i need Current upstream version of mootools is 1.4.5.
domtt part in folder javascript was deleted, because it isn't needed any longer. Spec URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/vdr-live.spec SRPM URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/vdr-live-0.2.0-8.20121009git.fc17.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Nov 22 2012 Martin Gansser <linux4martin> - 0.2.0-8.20121009git - added MIT license - deleted domtt part in javascript because it isn't needed.
the compilation fails now with the following error messages: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/guayadeque-0.3.6-8.svn1845/guayadeque_buildlog.txt?a=_22ag5z68tU
(In reply to comment #25) > the compilation fails now with the following error messages: > > https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/guayadeque-0.3.6-8. > svn1845/guayadeque_buildlog.txt?a=_22ag5z68tU That error message looks guayadeque related, isn't it? It has nothing to do with vdr-live.
(In reply to comment #26) > (In reply to comment #25) > > the compilation fails now with the following error messages: > > > > https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/guayadeque-0.3.6-8. > > svn1845/guayadeque_buildlog.txt?a=_22ag5z68tU > > That error message looks guayadeque related, isn't it? It has nothing to do > with vdr-live. you are right, it has nothing to do with vdr-live. Can the review are approved ? have you time ?
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries. Looks like tntnet is included. To be sure, that bundled version is not used, you should remove those files. (httpd directory) [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mrunge/review/821233 -vdr-live/licensecheck.txt [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [!]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0 (0001-Compile-fix-for-vdr-1.7.28.patch) Patch1 (live-1.7.30-fhs.diff) Source0 (vdr-plugin- live_0.2.0.99+cvs20121009.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: vdr-live-0.2.0-8.20121009git.fc19.x86_64.rpm vdr-live-debuginfo-0.2.0-8.20121009git.fc19.x86_64.rpm vdr-live-0.2.0-8.20121009git.fc19.src.rpm vdr-live.src: W: invalid-url Source0: vdr-plugin-live_0.2.0.99+cvs20121009.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint vdr-live-debuginfo vdr-live 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- vdr-live-0.2.0-8.20121009git.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(vdr-live) = 0.2.0-8.20121009git.fc19 libc.so.6()(64bit) libcxxtools.so.8()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpcre.so.1()(64bit) libpcrecpp.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtntnet.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) vdr(abi)(x86-64) = 1.7.31 vdr-live-debuginfo-0.2.0-8.20121009git.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- vdr-live-0.2.0-8.20121009git.fc19.x86_64.rpm: config(vdr-live) = 0.2.0-8.20121009git.fc19 libvdr-live.so.1.7.31()(64bit) vdr-live = 0.2.0-8.20121009git.fc19 vdr-live(x86-64) = 0.2.0-8.20121009git.fc19 vdr-live-debuginfo-0.2.0-8.20121009git.fc19.x86_64.rpm: vdr-live-debuginfo = 0.2.0-8.20121009git.fc19 vdr-live-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.2.0-8.20121009git.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 821233 Issues left: - tnt must be unbundled - for me, vdr-live looks like a service. Then you should include a systemd service file
Martin?
Hi Volker, I'm alive. Licensing rights are unclear, so I can not pursue this bug, or is there someone who can help me massively.
closing this. Martin, when things changed, i.e. upstream unbundled libs etc. please open a new bug.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1045756 ***