Spec URL: http://mlichvar.fedorapeople.org/tmp/linuxptp.spec SRPM URL: http://mlichvar.fedorapeople.org/tmp/linuxptp-0-0.1.20120920git6ce135.fc17.src.rpm Description: This software is an implementation of the Precision Time Protocol (PTP) according to IEEE standard 1588 for Linux. The dual design goals are to provide a robust implementation of the standard and to use the most relevant and modern Application Programming Interfaces (API) offered by the Linux kernel. Supporting legacy APIs and other platforms is not a goal. Fedora Account System Username: mlichvar
We'll probably need a permission from legal similarly to other PTP implementations.
PTP implementations are acceptable for Fedora. Lifting FE-Legal.
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [ ]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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. [ ]: MUST 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)" [ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST No %config files under /usr. [ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [ ]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [ ]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [ ]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [ ]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source2 (ptp4l.service) Source1 (phc2sys.service) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define gitdate 20120920 %define gitrev 6ce135 Issues: [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions Rpmlint ------- Checking: linuxptp-0-0.1.20120920git6ce135.fc17.src.rpm linuxptp-debuginfo-0-0.1.20120920git6ce135.fc17.x86_64.rpm linuxptp-0-0.1.20120920git6ce135.fc17.x86_64.rpm linuxptp.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{gitrev} linuxptp.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{gitdate} linuxptp.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{gitrev} linuxptp.src: W: invalid-url Source0: linuxptp-20120920git6ce135.tar.gz linuxptp.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib linuxptp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phc2sys linuxptp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pmc linuxptp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ptp4l linuxptp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hwstamp_ctl 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Please replace %define with %global: [!]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define gitdate 20120920 %define gitrev 6ce135
Thanks for the review! Updated srpm: http://mlichvar.fedorapeople.org/tmp/linuxptp-0-0.2.20120920git6ce135.fc17.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #4) > Thanks for the review! > > Updated srpm: > http://mlichvar.fedorapeople.org/tmp/linuxptp-0-0.2.20120920git6ce135.fc17. > src.rpm You're welcome. I checked the linuxptp-0-0.2.20120920git6ce135.fc17.src.rpm and SPEC file. All issues has been fixed. This package has been APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: linuxptp Short Description: PTP implementation for Linux Owners: mlichvar Branches: f18
Git done (by process-git-requests).