https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #25 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> ---
Issues:
=======
- Please seem my note about %{_smp_mflags} in comment #15. Parallel build is
still broken, so you should remove %{_smp_mflags} and add a note why.
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
Not very important... %dir %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} can be removed from %files
because it is already added by %doc.
OTOH, nfs-ganesha-docs should have '%dir %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}'
added to its %files.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL", "CDDL", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL
(v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4
clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "CDDL (v1.0 only)", "ISC", "LGPL (v3 or
later)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL", "*No copyright*
BSD", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address)". 211 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/zbyszek/fedora/nfs-ganesha/review-nfs-
ganesha/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha
(see note above)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
(but see note above)
[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.
[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[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 do not use a name that already exist
[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
Perl:
[ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo
$version)) missing?
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
It does, but it shouldn't.
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nfs-
ganesha-docs
Not necessary.
[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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: %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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[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: nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-0.1.rc5.fc20.x86_64.rpm
nfs-ganesha-docs-2.0.0-0.1.rc5.fc20.noarch.rpm
nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-0.1.rc5.fc20.src.rpm
nfs-ganesha.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pNFS -> snuffs
nfs-ganesha.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ganesha.nfsd
nfs-ganesha.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ganestat.pl
nfs-ganesha-docs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pNFS -> snuffs
nfs-ganesha.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pNFS -> snuffs
nfs-ganesha.src:24: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(libntirpc)
nfs-ganesha.src:85: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %cmake
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Maintainer -DBUILD_CONFIG=everything
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{buildroot}/usr ./src
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint nfs-ganesha nfs-ganesha-docs
nfs-ganesha.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pNFS -> snuffs
nfs-ganesha.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ganesha.nfsd
nfs-ganesha.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ganestat.pl
nfs-ganesha-docs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pNFS -> snuffs
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
nfs-ganesha (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/perl
dbus
jemalloc
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcap.so.2()(64bit)
libcom_err.so.2()(64bit)
libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit)
libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit)
libjemalloc.so.1()(64bit)
libk5crypto.so.3()(64bit)
libkrb5.so.3()(64bit)
libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT)(64bit)
libnfsidmap.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
libwbclient.so.0()(64bit)
libwbclient.so.0(WBCLIENT_0.9)(64bit)
perl(English)
perl(File::Basename)
perl(Getopt::Std)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
systemd
nfs-ganesha-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
nfs-ganesha:
bundled(libntirpc)
libfsalgpfs.so.4()(64bit)
libfsalnull.so.4()(64bit)
libfsalproxy.so.4()(64bit)
libfsalvfs.so.4()(64bit)
nfs-ganesha
nfs-ganesha(x86-64)
nfs-ganesha-docs:
nfs-ganesha-docs
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/nfs-ganesha/archive/pre-2.0-RC5.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
2e900fc95bb4c4a4396026a7ea60f5da0b4df6f1b40790e4e4af321280c187ed
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
2e900fc95bb4c4a4396026a7ea60f5da0b4df6f1b40790e4e4af321280c187ed
https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/ntirpc/archive/v1.0.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
63d8cbf3e8af403ba95683cbfb43f7af33bdba96efd04a2da1f018c4d27345ef
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
63d8cbf3e8af403ba95683cbfb43f7af33bdba96efd04a2da1f018c4d27345ef
Q: When configure is run, is see:
Cannot find GLUSTER GFAPI runtime. Disabling GLUSTER fsal build
Cannot find CEPH runtime. Disabling CEPH fsal build
Cannot find LUSTRE runtime. Disabling LUSTRE fsal build
Cannot find ZFS runtime. Disabling ZFS build
I have no idea what functionality is added when those dependencies are
provided... Would it be useful to compile with glusterfs-api-devel and
ceph-devel?
Cosmetic issues and one question. Package is APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
