Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/mono/mono-nat/mono-nat.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/mono/mono-nat/mono-nat-1.1.0-3.fc20.src.rpm Description: Mono library for automatic port forwarding Fedora Account System Username: raphgro Cause of mono, rpmlint shows wired false errors: mono-nat.x86_64: E: no-binary mono-nat.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mono-nat-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mono-nat.src:2: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} This package is already in SCM but retired. I would like to bring it alive again.
koji rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8204347
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/mono-nat See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ---> Package exists in pkgdb, but is retiered. This is a revive-review. ===== MUST items ===== 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. [-]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1166897-mono-nat/licensecheck.txt ---> According to licensecheck the license is fine. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: %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). ---> Execption for /usr/lib/ with Mono. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. ---> -devel-pkg as explained below. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. ---> Empty debuginfo [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. ---> There are arches known which are not working with Mono… ---> BuildArch: %{mono_arches} [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> Issues are present. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. ---> Parallel-makejob fails. Bug is commented in spec-file. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ---> Cannot find any evidence on upstream's bug-tracker… [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mono-nat- devel ---> Fix the Requires of the -devel-pkg as shown above, please. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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 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: mono-nat-1.1.0-3.fc22.x86_64.rpm mono-nat-devel-1.1.0-3.fc22.x86_64.rpm mono-nat-1.1.0-3.fc22.src.rpm mono-nat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uPnP -> upon mono-nat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pmp -> ppm, pm, pp mono-nat.x86_64: E: no-binary mono-nat.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mono-nat.x86_64: W: no-documentation mono-nat-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mono-nat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation mono-nat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uPnP -> upon mono-nat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pmp -> ppm, pm, pp mono-nat.src:2: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@x220 /]# rpmlint mono-nat-devel mono-nat mono-nat-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mono-nat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation mono-nat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uPnP -> upon mono-nat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pmp -> ppm, pm, pp mono-nat.x86_64: E: no-binary mono-nat.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mono-nat.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@x220 /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mono-nat-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config mono-nat pkgconfig mono-nat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mono(System) mono(System.Xml) mono(mscorlib) Provides -------- mono-nat-devel: mono-nat-devel mono-nat-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(mono.nat) mono-nat: mono(Mono.Nat) mono-nat mono-nat(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://projects.qnetp.net/attachments/download/76/mono-nat-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 34095f6524f9e6bebe0b696d76fbfcaba84cfe3ac04f811ba9d37fe14ba0bca1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 34095f6524f9e6bebe0b696d76fbfcaba84cfe3ac04f811ba9d37fe14ba0bca1 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1166897 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG ===== Solution ===== **NOT** approved, fix them issues and I'll have another run.
Please use ExclusiveArch: %{mono_arches} as Mono is not available on all platforms Fedora supports.
Hi Björn, thanks for the review. What should be done about the parallel compilation issue? My suggestion is to use just xbuild directlyinstead of make. As it turns out, the project moved to github. You can find there a valid license.
Release #4. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/mono/mono-nat/mono-nat.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/mono/mono-nat/mono-nat-1.1.0-4.fc20.src.rpm rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8381671
Currently package FTBFS… INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 1166897 INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1166897 INFO: --> SRPM url: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/mono/mono-nat/mono-nat-1.1.0-4.fc20.src.rpm INFO: --> Spec url: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/mono/mono-nat/mono-nat.spec INFO: Using review directory: /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1166897-mono-nat INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files INFO: Downloading (Source2): https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mono/Mono.Nat/master/LICENSE#/mono-nat_LICENSE WARNING: Cannot download url: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mono/Mono.Nat/master/LICENSE#/mono-nat_LICENSE INFO: No upstream for (Source2): LICENSE INFO: Downloading (Source3): https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Mailaender/Mono.Nat/fb17acfe121f5a6d621bc44a2c59d1822c347f36/README.md#/mono-nat_README.md WARNING: Cannot download url: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Mailaender/Mono.Nat/fb17acfe121f5a6d621bc44a2c59d1822c347f36/README.md#/mono-nat_README.md INFO: No upstream for (Source3): README.md INFO: Downloading (Source0): https://github.com/mono/Mono.Nat/archive/Mono.Nat-1.1.0.tar.gz#/mono-nat-1.1.0.tar.gz INFO: Downloading (Source1): https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mono/Mono.Nat/master/AUTHORS#/mono-nat_AUTHORS WARNING: Cannot download url: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mono/Mono.Nat/master/AUTHORS#/mono-nat_AUTHORS INFO: No upstream for (Source1): AUTHORS INFO: Running checks and generating report INFO: Results and/or logs in: /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1166897-mono-nat/results INFO: Build completed INFO: Installing built package(s) INFO: Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api ERROR: 'Source2 file /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1166897-mono-nat/srpm-unpacked/LICENSE is missing in src.rpm. Conditional source inclusion?' (logs in /home/besser82/.cache/fedora-review.log) If you want to have the files located on github, use the *complete* github-tarball instead…
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #6) > Currently package FTBFS… > … > If you want to have the files located on github, use the *complete* > github-tarball instead… As it turns out, the github tarball luckily includes LICENSE and AUTHORS. Unfortunately, this tarball does not provide any Makefile nor Makefile.in files, but Makefile.am only. I tried to tweak that somehow with autoreconf or automake, but without any success so far. Please help to use automake properly. Otherwise, I would suggest to leave mono-nat as dead as it is ("to not wake up any bad zombie"). For reference, I'll upload the spec file without any claim to fix FTBFS. https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/mono/mono-nat/mono-nat.spec Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.JMcPjo + umask 022 + cd /home/build/rpmbuild/BUILD + cd Mono.Nat-Mono.Nat-1.1.0 + pushd src ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/Mono.Nat-Mono.Nat-1.1.0/src ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/Mono.Nat-Mono.Nat-1.1.0 + autoreconf -i configure.ac:5: installing './install-sh' configure.ac:5: installing './missing' Makefile.include:65: error: 'pkglibdir' is not a legitimate directory for 'SCRIPTS' Mono.Nat/Makefile.am:96: 'Makefile.include' included from here autoreconf: automake failed with exit status: 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.JMcPjo (%build)
https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/issues/7140
Release #7. (5 and 6 skipped due to build problems) Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/mono/mono-nat/mono-nat.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/mono/mono-nat/mono-nat-1.1.0-7.fc21.src.rpm rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8585907
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8585923
ping?
No reply since over two weeks, removing assigned reviewer due to I guess it is no interest any more.
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/mono-nat.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/mono-nat-1.1.0-8.20150427git025b570.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11390769 * Wed Oct 07 2015 Raphael Groner <> - 1.1.0-8.20150427git025b570 - switch back to nterry fork - rebuild with mono4 - use gacutil and sign binary - clean useless commands
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/mono-nat.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/mono-nat-1.1.0-8.20150427git025b570.fc23.src.rpm
I try review but %check fail in mock enviroment with "/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.mN8wMc: line 36: killall: command not found" Please, not use killall or add "buildrequired: psmisc"
Hi Claudio, thanks for your interest. The test is there to ensure the binary is callable but it's running forever while we don't cancel the process. Now I use the timeout command instead of killall. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/mono-nat.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/mono-nat-1.1.0-9.20150427git025b570.fc23.src.rpm
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11738642
OpenRA moved to Open.NAT and obsoletes Mono.NAT, upstream is dead anyways. I doubt there's any sense to continue with this review?
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #18) > OpenRA moved to Open.NAT and obsoletes Mono.NAT, upstream is dead anyways. I > doubt there's any sense to continue with this review? I see that Mono.NAT is still alive. Few minor changes but alive. Also is under mono umbrella on github I thing that will be good have Mono.NAT and Open.NAT into Fedora. Like other fork projects. Open.Nat have a different focus in some features. See http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/807861/Open-NAT-A-NAT-Traversal-library-for-NET-and-Mono#Open.NAT%20and%20Mono.Nat If you want open a new review for Open.Nat I will check it to.
There was some activity in the mono master branch for dotnet 4.5. commit/2889dda3dcf7ab9e70d02ca7c746f156e39934a2 Should we step from nterry fork to the original mono GitHub?