[Bug 1311045] Review Request: Avago ECD RoCE User space library (libocrdma)
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Mar 17 16:04:36 UTC 2016
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1311045
Neil Horman <nhorman at redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags| |needinfo?(ocrdma-dev.pdl at br
| |oadcom.com)
--- Comment #8 from Neil Horman <nhorman at redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/nhorman/review-
libocrdma/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: libocrdma-devel. Does not provide -static:
libocrdma-devel.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
===== 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]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)",
"Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/licensecheck.txt
<NH> The spec file indicates this is GPL or BSD licensed, but the COPYING file
in the source indicates GPLv2
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
<NH> see above
[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.
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
<NH> Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/libibverbs.d/ocrdma.driver
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
<NH> Seems like -devel is missing header files
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[! : Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
Note: %makeinstall used in %install section
<NH> DESTDIR works fine, you should use that
[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.
[-]: 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.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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 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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
libocrdma-devel , libocrdma-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
<NH> version 1.0.7 appears to have been released
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[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.
Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.2.15 starting (python version = 3.4.3)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
Mock Version: 1.2.15
INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.15
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-devel-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-debuginfo-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-debuginfo-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
# /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
--releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install
/home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-devel-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-debuginfo-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-debuginfo-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
WARNING: unable to delete selinux filesystems
(/tmp/mock-selinux-plugin.elt5dnb1): [Errno 1] Operation not permitted:
'/tmp/mock-selinux-plugin.elt5dnb1'
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libocrdma-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
libocrdma-devel-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
libocrdma-debuginfo-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
libocrdma-1.0.6-2.fc25.src.rpm
libocrdma.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space,
User-space, Users pace
libocrdma.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Userspace Library for Emulex ROCE
Device.
libocrdma.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user
space, user-space, users pace
libocrdma.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libibverbs ->
verbalizes
libocrdma.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C libocrdma provides a
device-specific userspace driver for Emulex One Command RoCE Adapters
libocrdma.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL
libocrdma.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/libibverbs.d/ocrdma.driver
libocrdma.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rpm
libocrdma-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL
libocrdma-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libocrdma-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL
libocrdma.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space,
User-space, Users pace
libocrdma.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Userspace Library for Emulex ROCE
Device.
libocrdma.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space,
user-space, users pace
libocrdma.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libibverbs -> verbalizes
libocrdma.src: E: description-line-too-long C libocrdma provides a
device-specific userspace driver for Emulex One Command RoCE Adapters
libocrdma.src: W: invalid-license GPL
libocrdma.src: W: file-size-mismatch libocrdma-1.0.6.tar.gz = 327021,
http://www.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/libocrdma-1.0.6.tar.gz = 324568
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 16 warnings.
Requires
--------
libocrdma-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libocrdma-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libocrdma
libocrdma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
config(libocrdma)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libibverbs.so.1()(64bit)
libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.0)(64bit)
libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.1)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
libocrdma-debuginfo:
libocrdma-debuginfo
libocrdma-debuginfo(x86-64)
libocrdma-devel:
libocrdma-devel
libocrdma-devel(x86-64)
libocrdma:
config(libocrdma)
libocrdma
libocrdma(x86-64)
libocrdma-rdmav2.so()(64bit)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
libocrdma: /usr/lib64/libocrdma-rdmav2.so
libocrdma: /usr/lib64/libocrdma.so
Source checksums
----------------
http://www.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/libocrdma-1.0.6.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
19c1aafb545c3cce6d1680914db02a9e83e8e4051f9974d4b412d354f0595d4e
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
6b9aa29ca1368b2211f8a7233114f9c4f6cd305f686af8dbbe7220202b303243
diff -r also reports differences
Please address the noted issues and resubmit. Thanks
--
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