[Bug 1168914] Review Request: xrootd-compat - Extended ROOT file server - compat version
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Dec 9 16:08:17 UTC 2014
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168914
--- Comment #2 from Adrien Devresse <adev88 at gmail.com> ---
Review for xrootd-compat 3.3.6-1
Builds :
EPEL6
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8329200
EPEL5
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8329336
F20
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8329273
[FAIL] : rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
rpmlint /var/lib/mock/epel-6-x86_64/result/*.rpm
xrootd-compat.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
xrootd-compat.src:148: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:149: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:150: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:151: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:154: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:155: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:156: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:157: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:158: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:159: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:160: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:161: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:163: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:164: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:165: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:166: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:169: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:170: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:171: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:172: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:173: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:176: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:177: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:178: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:179: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:180: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:182: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:183: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.src:184: E: files-attr-not-set
xrootd-compat.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided xrootd
xrootd-compat.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xrootd-compat-client-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libXrdClient.so.1.0.1 exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
xrootd-compat-client-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xrootd-compat-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libXrdAppUtils.so.0.0.1 exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
xrootd-compat-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libXrdMain.so.1.0.0 exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
xrootd-compat-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libXrdMain.so.1.0.0 _exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
xrootd-compat-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libXrdSecpwd.so
xrootd-compat-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libXrdSecunix.so
xrootd-compat-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libXrdSec.so
xrootd-compat-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libXrdCryptossl.so
xrootd-compat-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libXrdSeckrb5.so
xrootd-compat-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsi.so
xrootd-compat-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libXrdSecsss.so
xrootd-compat-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiAuthzVO.so
xrootd-compat-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiGMAPDN.so
xrootd-compat-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiGMAPLDAP.so
xrootd-compat-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libXrdCksCalczcrc32.so
xrootd-compat-server-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libXrdServer.so.1.0.0 _exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
xrootd-compat-server-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libXrdXrootd.so.1.0.1 _exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
xrootd-compat-server-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xrootd-compat-server-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libXrdPss.so
xrootd-compat-server-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libXrdXrootd.so
xrootd-compat-server-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libXrdBwm.so
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 29 errors, 24 warnings.
The main issues :
-> devel-file-in-non-devel-packag
-> if xrootd compat gives xrootd compatibility for xrootd3 binary apps,
the libraries should not overlap with the xrootdv4 devel package.
Are these libraries plugins ? If yes, do they have suffix in v4 ?
Minors:
-> shared-lib-calls-exit
-> no-documentation
-> files-attr-not-set
[PASS] : The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[PASS] : The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[FAIL] : The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
-> the unversionned so are packaged and override the xrootd-devel package
[PASS] : The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[PASS] : The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
cat xrootd-3.3.6/LICENSE
"Copyright (c) 2005-2012, Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford, Jr.
University.\n"
"Produced under contract DE-AC02-76-SF00515 with the US Department of Energy.
\n"
"All rights reserved. The copyright holder's institutional names may not be
used to\n"
"endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior
\n"
"written permission.\n\n"
"This file is part of the XRootD software suite. \n\n"
"XRootD is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
terms \n"
"of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software
\n"
"Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later
version.\n\n"
"XRootD is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY
WARRANTY;\n"
"without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR \n"
"PURPOSE. See the GNU Lesser General Public License for more details.
\nn"
"You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License along
\n"
"with XRootD in a file called COPYING.LESSER (LGPL license) and file COPYING
(GPL \n"
"license). If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.\n\n"
"Prior to September 2nd, 2012 the XRootD software suite was licensed under a\n"
"modified BSD license (see file COPYING.BSD). This applies to all code that\n"
"was in the XRootD git repository prior to that date.\n"
[PASS] : 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 must be included in %doc.[4]
[PASS] : The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[PASS] : The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[PASS] : The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
06656d919f5296bcf49953e97b1f3d1cf601c9a1d676945529032fa0046d7217
xrootd-3.3.6.tar.gz
06656d919f5296bcf49953e97b1f3d1cf601c9a1d676945529032fa0046d7217
xrootd-compat-3.3.6-1.fc20.x86_64/xrootd-3.3.6.tar.gz
[PASS] : The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
[N/A] : If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[PASS] : All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[N/A] : The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[PASS] : Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[N/A] : Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[N/A] : If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
[N/A] : A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
[PASS] : A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
[PASS] : Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. [15]
[N/A] : Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[PASS] : The package must contain code, or permissible content. [17]
[N/A] : Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
[PASS] : If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [18]
[N/A] : Static libraries must be in a -static package. [19]
[PASS] : Development files must be in a -devel package. [20]
-> compat package no devel files
[N/A] : In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
[N/A] : Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[19]
[N/A] : Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[22]
[PASS] : Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23]
[PASS] : All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
[PASS] : If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [25]
-> LGPLv3 file
[N/A] : The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26]
[PASS] : The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27]
[PASS] : The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures. [28]
[PASS] : The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[N/A] : If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29]
[PASS] : Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency. [21]
[N/A] : The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [30]
[PASS] : If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself. [31]
[PASS] : your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32]
-> ref non compat pkg for man page
Blocking issues :
- Clarification needed about transition xrootd 3 - > xrootd 4 and devel
package.
- Fix rpmlint problems
Comments :
The src package provided for the review is incompatible for EL5. ( not md5
)
--
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
More information about the package-review
mailing list