https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983601
Christopher Engelhard <c...@lcts.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(tkor...@redhat.co
| |m)
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Engelhard <c...@lcts.de> ---
Full review below, please let me know if you have any questions. The package is
generally OK, apart from the issues listed below.
One question from my side:
Is /usr/lib64/guile/3.0/extensions/guile-readline.so* something that is
supposed to be generally available or is that
guile-internal like the stuff in .../ccache ?
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
=======
- [MUST] If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Please add BuildRequires: gcc
- [MUST] There are some directories that should be owned by this package but
aren't:
/usr/share/guile/site/3.0, /usr/share/guile/3.0/scheme, /usr/share/guile/site
Please add them to %files
- [MUST] Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
package has .info files.
- [MUST] Some parts of the code seem to be MIT/GPL/PublicDomain licensed,
rather than LGPL,
please check if these end up in the package
MIT License:
- guile-3.0.7/doc/ref/sxml-match.texi
- guile-3.0.7/module/ice-9/quasisyntax.scm
- guile-3.0.7/module/srfi/srfi-38.scm
- guile-3.0.7/module/srfi/srfi-41.scm
- guile-3.0.7/module/srfi/srfi-45.scm
- guile-3.0.7/module/srfi/srfi-64/testing.scm
- guile-3.0.7/module/srfi/srfi-67/compare.scm
- guile-3.0.7/module/srfi/srfi-71.scm
- guile-3.0.7/module/sxml/sxml-match.ss
Public domain
- guile-3.0.7/module/ice-9/match.upstream.scm
GPL
- guile-3.0.7/guile-readline/ice-9/readline.scm
GPLv3+
- guile-3.0.7/guile-readline/readline.c
- guile-3.0.7/guile-readline/readline.h
- guile-3.0.7/libguile/libguile-3.0-gdb.scm
- guile-3.0.7/module/language/elisp/compile-tree-il.scm
- [SHOULD] Please add dependencies on pkg-config and change (build)requires
to pkgconfig(<libraryname>). See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PkgConfigBuildRequires/
- [SHOULD] Please add comment with the rationale for the bundled provide, e.g.
that guile ships a patched version of a git checkout of localcharset.[h,c]
from gnulib, as intended by gnulib upstream.
- [SHOULD] Please also add the version of the bundled gnulib. Brief look at
upstream seems to indicate
that it is v0.1-1157-gb03f418, but that doesn't really line up with the
numbering scheme the fedora
package uses (just Version: 0 coupled to a Release: with git suffix) or with
the way gnulib works in general
I'd suggest just adding the Version as a comment. Git history of the file is
here:
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=guile.git;a=commit;h=a91b95cca2d397c84f8b9bbd602d40209a7092ce
- [SHOULD] Please list libguile version explicitly in %files, rather than via
glob (i.e as libguile*.so..X.Y.Z or at least .X*) to protect against
accidental library
version bumps. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries
- [SHOULD] Please add brief comments and/or upstream links to patches to
explain what they do.
- [SHOULD] Doesn't build on aarch64 due to test fail:
error: 'guild compile' failed to remove 't-guild-compile-100826.go.64hinA'
FAIL: test-guild-compile
wrote
`/builddir/build/BUILD/guile-3.0.7/cache/guile/ccache/3.0-LE-8-4.5/builddir/build/BUILD/guile-3.0.7/test-suite/standalone/test-signal-fork.go'
parent: child: 100919101058
- [EXTRA] [RPMLINT] [PATCH] missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot is most likely
triggered by libguile/posix.c,
and for once seems to me to not be a false positive. Please check (I'm not
that much of a C expert)
and consider adding a patch that calls chdir() before chrooting, as this is a
potential security issue.
- [EXTRA] [PATCH] configure.ac contains AC_PROG_LIBTOOL, which is deprecated.
Maybe add a patch to replace it
with LT_INIT? No further changes should be necessary. See
https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/LT_005fINIT.html
- [EXTRA] [RPMLINT] [PATCH] Fix FSF address.
- [NON-ISSUE] Further (informative, non-issue) comments inline below, enclosed
in ****.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[X]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[X]: Package contains no static executables.
[X]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
**** Shared libraries in libdir are guile-specific, not in LDPATH and
not even normal libraries ****
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/guile/site/3.0,
/usr/share/guile/3.0/scheme
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/guile/site/3.0,
/usr/share/guile/3.0/scheme, /usr/share/guile/site
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
**** existing guile packages put all their stuff in <base>/guile/<version>
so it makes sense for this package to follow that precedent. Since it
doesn't
directly or indirectly require any other guile version, it is OK for it to
co-own
/usr/include/guile, /usr/lib64/guile, /usr/share/guile owned by other
guile
packages. ****
[X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
**** Package contains a single file from gnulib, which is additionally
patched by
upstream. Same exceptions as granted to the guile 2.x package should apply
here ****
[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).
[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.
[X]: 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.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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 %license.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
**** Not tested, as I have no knowledge of Scheme ****
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
**** Works on x86_64 & armhfp, %check fails
on aarch64, not tested on s390x & ppc64le ****
[X]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
**** Some obsoleted macros found, see end of review for details. ****
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: guile3-3.0.7-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
guile3-devel-3.0.7-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
guile3-debuginfo-3.0.7-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
guile3-debugsource-3.0.7-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
guile3-3.0.7-1.fc35.src.rpm
guile3.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/guile/3.0/ccache/ice-9/and-let-star.go
guile3.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/usr/lib64/guile/3.0/ccache/ice-9/and-let-star.go
guile3.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section
/usr/lib64/guile/3.0/ccache/ice-9/and-let-star.go
**** Omitted for readablility: the same 3 complaints about every other .go file
in /usr/lib64/guile/3.0/ccache/ ****
**** the above are all caused by rpmlint mistaking guile-internal scheme libs
as normal shared libraries. These are OK. ****
guile3.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot
/usr/lib64/libguile-3.0.so.1.4.0
guile3.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/guile/3.0/language/elisp/compile-tree-il.scm
**** these two are easy fixes ****
guile3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guild3.0
guile3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-tools3.0
guile3.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm
guile3.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm
guile3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
guile3-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-config3.0
guile3-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-snarf3.0
**** these are expected & OK to not fix ****
guile3.src:28: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(gnulib)
**** see issues above ****
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 656 errors, 335 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: guile3-debuginfo-3.0.7-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
guile3: /usr/lib64/guile/3.0/extensions/guile-readline.so
Source checksums
----------------
https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/guile/guile-3.0.7.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
c7935b7a29e42443f6a35d35cf20ffa7d028c399303f872cd1219598a83656ae
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
c7935b7a29e42443f6a35d35cf20ffa7d028c399303f872cd1219598a83656ae
Requires
--------
guile3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/sh
coreutils
glibc
ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcrypt.so.2()(64bit)
libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit)
libffi.so.6()(64bit)
libgc.so.1()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
libguile-3.0.so.1()(64bit)
libguile-3.0.so.1(GUILE_2.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libncurses.so.6()(64bit)
libreadline.so.8()(64bit)
libtinfo.so.6()(64bit)
libunistring.so.2()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
guile3-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
/usr/bin/sh
gc-devel
gmp-devel
guile3(x86-64)
libguile-3.0.so.1()(64bit)
pkgconfig
guile3-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
guile3-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
guile3:
bundled(gnulib)
guile3
guile3(x86-64)
libguile-3.0.so.1()(64bit)
libguile-3.0.so.1(GUILE_2.0)(64bit)
guile3-devel:
guile3-devel
guile3-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(guile-3.0)
guile3-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
guile3-debuginfo
guile3-debuginfo(x86-64)
libguile-3.0.so.1.4.0-3.0.7-1.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
guile3-debugsource:
guile3-debugsource
guile3-debugsource(x86-64)
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: guile-3.0.7/configure.ac:104,
guile-3.0.7/configure.ac:1414
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1983601
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, Java, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, Ruby,
Haskell, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
