https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #55 from Michal Schmidt <mschm...@redhat.com> --- Reviewing libpsm2-10.1.7-1 (made from commit faa1ef38a33b4caa64c56040a2447c1ce105b3e4). Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= The COPYING file must be included in the package and marked as %license. The source tree contains header files from valgrind. Can it instead use valgrind headers from the system? (BuildRequires: valgrind-devel) Is 40-psm.rules even needed with the current hfi1 kernel driver? The device nodes should already have the expected mode even without this rule file. Please remove 40-psm.rules if that's the case. The compat subpackage should have "Requires: systemd-udev" to ensure /usr/lib/udev/rules.d is owned by an installed package. Since systemd-udev requires kmod, the directory /usr/lib/modprobe.d will then also be owned. /usr/sbin/libpsm2-compat.cmds is called from the modprobe.d rules and I don't think it's meant to be run by the administrator. In that case it should not be in the default $PATH. /usr/lib/libpsm2/libpsm2-compat.cmds or /usr/libexec/libpsm2-compat.cmds would be better. Should add "BuildRequires: gcc" according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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 %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "zlib/libpng", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck: BSD (2 clause) -------------- libpsm2-10.1.7/COPYING BSD (3 clause) -------------- libpsm2-10.1.7/include/valgrind/memcheck.h libpsm2-10.1.7/include/valgrind/valgrind.h #### Why are the valgrind headers included in the source tree? BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2) ----------------------- [... 174 files ...] BSD (4 clause) -------------- libpsm2-10.1.7/include/opa_queue.h #### The advertising (3rd) clause of the 4-clause BSD license is incompatible #### with GPL. Fortunately, opa_queue.h is copyrighted by The Regents of the #### University of California, who retroactively deleted the clause in 1999: #### ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change Unknown or generated -------------------- libpsm2-10.1.7/COMMIT libpsm2-10.1.7/RELEASE libpsm2-10.1.7/psm_log.h #### psm_log.h has a valid dual BSD/GPLv2 license header, which just was #### not recognized by the automatic tool. No problem. zlib/libpng ----------- libpsm2-10.1.7/ptl_ips/ips_crc32.c #### The zlib license is compatible with both BSD and GPL licenses. OK. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. #### The Requires are in place to fulfill this requirement as soon as the main #### package includes the COPYING file (already noted above). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev, /usr/lib/modprobe.d, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d #### Is the udev rules file even needed with the current hfi1 kernel driver? #### Directory ownership of /usr/lib/modprobe.d should be ensured by requiring #### the package that owns the directory: #### Requires: kmod [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. #### The changelog has only one entry, but the format is correct. [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). [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. #### Well, almost. /usr/sbin/libpsm2-compat.cmds is called from the modprobe.d #### rules and I don't think it's meant to be run by the administrator. #### In that case it should not be in the default $PATH. #### /usr/lib/libpsm2/libpsm2-compat.cmds or #### /usr/libexec/libpsm2-compat.cmds would be better. [x]: 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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. #### The package uses ExclusiveArch justifiably. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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]: Dist tag is present. [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 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]: 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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be 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. [-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libpsm2-10.1.7-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm libpsm2-devel-10.1.7-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm libpsm2-compat-10.1.7-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm libpsm2-debuginfo-10.1.7-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm libpsm2-10.1.7-1.fc25.src.rpm libpsm2.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 10.1.7 ['10.1.7-1.fc25', '10.1.7-1'] libpsm2.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpsm2.so.2.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 #### You might want to look into this. rpmlint's detailed info says: #### #### This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() #### context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library #### function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the #### error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any #### state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an #### actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the #### situation. libpsm2.x86_64: W: no-documentation libpsm2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libpsm2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libpsm2-compat.x86_64: W: no-documentation libpsm2-compat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libpsm2-compat.cmds libpsm2.src:122: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/modprobe.d/libpsm2-compat.conf #### Ignore this error. Using %{_lib} here would be wrong. libpsm2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libpsm2-10.1.7.tar.gz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- libpsm2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libpsm2-compat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libpsm2(x86-64) libpsm2.so.2()(64bit) libpsm2.so.2(PSM2_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libpsm2-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libpsm2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libpsm2(x86-64) libpsm2.so.2()(64bit) libuuid-devel Provides -------- libpsm2: libpsm2 libpsm2(x86-64) libpsm2.so.2()(64bit) libpsm2.so.2(PSM2_1.0)(64bit) libpsm2-compat: libpsm2-compat libpsm2-compat(x86-64) libpsm_infinipath.so.1()(64bit) libpsm_infinipath.so.1(PSM_1.0)(64bit) libpsm2-debuginfo: libpsm2-debuginfo libpsm2-debuginfo(x86-64) libpsm2-devel: libpsm2-devel libpsm2-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n libpsm2-10.1.7-1.fc24.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
