[Bug 1209166] Review Request: palo - cell-oriented, multi-dimensional in-memory OLAP server

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Nov 7 06:08:18 UTC 2015 

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209166



--- Comment #15 from Michael John Arnold <myk321 at gmail.com> ---
Issues List
===========
1. License inconsistencies where the software claims to be GPL v2 licensed but
URL in LICENSE file points to GPL v3 license.  Issue reported upstream.
2. Software provided by upsteam in a set of folders rather than in .tgz.  .tgz
provided by packager.  URL points to folders where source code is available.
3. cmake used so no %check section in .spec
4. Numerous undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings from rpmlint: not sure how to
address these.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[X]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[X]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
COMMENT: /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so links to libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4
[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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GPL (v2)) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)",
     "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 146 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/myk/1209166-palo/licensecheck.txt
COMMENT: license inconsistency reported upstream here:
http://forum.jedox.com/index.php/Thread/4602-Packaging-Palo-Server-for-Fedora/?postID=18974#post18974
[-]: 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/selinux/targeted,
     /usr/share/selinux/mls, /usr/lib/systemd/system,
     /usr/share/selinux/minimum, /usr/lib/systemd
[X]: %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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[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.
[X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 235520 bytes in 8 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source0:
     https://svn.code.sf.net/p/palo/code/molap/server/5.1.4/palo-5.1.4.tgz
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
COMMENT: .tgz not available from upstream, but expected by packaging
guidelines. Upstream provides source in a set of folders.  .tgz is provided by
packager.  URL minus filename is the link to the upstream source code.
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
COMMENT: this warning refers to make for SELinux policy which cannot use -j
directive.
[X]: 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 palo-
     debuginfo
[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.
[X]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
COMMENT: cmake used not make.
[X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: palo-5.1.4-0.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          palo-debuginfo-5.1.4-0.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          palo-5.1.4-0.fc22.src.rpm
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.0 palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.0 palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/bin/palo palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/bin/palo palo
palo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/palo/LICENSE
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4 palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4 palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so palo
palo.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/palo palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/palo palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/palo/Data palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/palo/Data palo
palo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/build/Config/build.h
COMMENT: As noted above, issue reported upstream here:
http://forum.jedox.com/index.php/Thread/4602-Packaging-Palo-Server-for-Fedora/?postID=18974#post18974
COMMENT many incorrect-fsf-address errors removed here as post is too long.
palo.src:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 13)
palo.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://svn.code.sf.net/p/palo/code/molap/server/5.1.4/palo-5.1.4.tgz HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
COMMENT: As noted above, .tgz not available from upstream, but expected by
packaging guidelines. Upstream provides source in a set of folders.  .tgz is
provided by packager.  URL minus filename is the link to the upstream source
code.
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 563 errors, 15 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: palo-debuginfo-5.1.4-0.fc22.x86_64.rpm
palo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/palo-5.1.4/Library/Exceptions/CommitException.cpp
COMMENT: As noted above, issue reported upstream here:
http://forum.jedox.com/index.php/Thread/4602-Packaging-Palo-Server-for-Fedora/?postID=18974#post18974
COMMENT many incorrect-fsf-address errors removed here as post is too long.
palo.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4
typeinfo for palo::Task
COMMENT many undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings removed here as post is too
long.
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/palo/Data palo
COMMENT: for security reasons, uid set to the palo daemon's user 'palo'
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/palo/Data palo
COMMENT: for security reasons, gid set to the palo daemon's group 'palo', to
avoid using root
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.0 palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.0 palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so palo
palo.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so
COMMENT: as noted above, /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so links to
libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4 
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/palo palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/palo palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4 palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4 palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/bin/palo palo
palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/bin/palo palo
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 563 errors, 73 warnings.



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/myk/1209166-palo/srpm/palo.spec    2015-11-07 12:02:37.990565731
+0800
+++ /home/myk/1209166-palo/srpm-unpacked/palo.spec    2015-11-06
22:00:32.000000000 +0800
@@ -11,5 +11,5 @@
 Source2:            palo.te
 Source3:            palo.fc
-Source4:            palo.1
+Source4:        palo.1
 Patch0:             palo-5.1.4-cmake.patch
 #Provide a systemd unit to start palo on boot: not provide by source tree


Requires
--------
palo-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

palo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    config(palo)
    libboost_regex.so.1.57.0()(64bit)
    libboost_system.so.1.57.0()(64bit)
    libboost_thread.so.1.57.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.10()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libhttps.palo.so.0()(64bit)
    libicui18n.so.54()(64bit)
    libicuuc.so.54()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libssl.so.10()(64bit)
    libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    selinux-policy
    shadow-utils



Provides
--------
palo-debuginfo:
    palo-debuginfo
    palo-debuginfo(x86-64)

palo:
    config(palo)
    libhttps.palo.so.0()(64bit)
    palo
    palo(x86-64)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
palo: /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1209166
Buildroot used: fedora-22-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

More information about the package-review mailing list