[Bug 2193156] New: Review Request: intel-metee - Cross-platform access library for Intel CSME HECI interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
Bug ID: 2193156 Summary: Review Request: intel-metee - Cross-platform access library for Intel CSME HECI interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: aekoroglu@linux.intel.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-r... SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-r...
Description: Cross-platform access library for Intel CSME HECI interface.
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/intel/me | |tee
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5873260 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |topazus@outlook.com
--- Comment #2 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/intel-metee/licensecheck.txt
License: Apache-2.0
a) You need to check the license from upstream.
b) The build output showed `No tests were found!!!`. If you want to enable tests, BUILD_TEST option should be ON, https://github.com/intel/metee/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt#L7
c) There is a newer release, please update it to the latest.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |topazus@outlook.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
--- Comment #3 from Ali Erdinc Koroglu aekoroglu@linux.intel.com --- Hello, thank you Felix
SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-r... SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1970991 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1970991&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5873260 to 6086122
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6086122 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Sorry for the late response in the process of the package review.
License: Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-only
A minor issue needs to be fixed here, I think the license field should be: ``` License: Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND ((GPL-2.0-only WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) ```
The other remaining parts of the spec file looks good to me. Approved.
---
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/intel-metee/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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: [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: intel-metee-3.2.3-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm intel-metee-devel-3.2.3-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm intel-metee-doc-3.2.3-1.fc38.noarch.rpm intel-metee-debuginfo-3.2.3-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm intel-metee-debugsource-3.2.3-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm intel-metee-3.2.3-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpw1rsj1be')] checks: 31, packages: 6
intel-metee-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/classes_0.js /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/all_0.js intel-metee-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/variables_0.js /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/all_1.js intel-metee-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/functions_0.js /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/all_2.js intel-metee-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/variables_1.js /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/all_3.js intel-metee-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/variables_2.js /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/all_4.js 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: intel-metee-debuginfo-3.2.3-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpw5tx3yl8')] checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 5
intel-metee-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/classes_0.js /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/all_0.js intel-metee-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/variables_0.js /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/all_1.js intel-metee-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/functions_0.js /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/all_2.js intel-metee-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/variables_1.js /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/all_3.js intel-metee-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/variables_2.js /usr/share/doc/metee/html/search/all_4.js 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/intel/metee/archive/3.2.3/metee-3.2.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2f98147a3e5f48877508cc11b9fd7f87ced382a3e328e823aa821f7461a0a374 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2f98147a3e5f48877508cc11b9fd7f87ced382a3e328e823aa821f7461a0a374
Requires -------- intel-metee (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
intel-metee-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): intel-metee(x86-64) libmetee.so.3.2.3()(64bit)
intel-metee-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
intel-metee-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
intel-metee-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- intel-metee: intel-metee intel-metee(x86-64) libmetee.so.3.2.3()(64bit)
intel-metee-devel: intel-metee-devel intel-metee-devel(x86-64)
intel-metee-doc: intel-metee-doc
intel-metee-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) intel-metee-debuginfo intel-metee-debuginfo(x86-64) libmetee.so.3.2.3-3.2.3-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
intel-metee-debugsource: intel-metee-debugsource intel-metee-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name intel-metee --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, Java, Perl, R, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
Ali Erdinc Koroglu aekoroglu@linux.intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(topazus@outlook.c | |om)
--- Comment #7 from Ali Erdinc Koroglu aekoroglu@linux.intel.com --- Dear @topazus@outlook.com, somehow I missed that so sorry. Could you please review this new version too ?
SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-r... SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(topazus@outlook.c | |om) |
--- Comment #8 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- + package name is OK + license is acceptable for Fedora: Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND ((GPL-2.0-only WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) + builds and installs OK + BR/P/R look correct + no scriptlets needed or present + rpmlint finds no big issue
The new version of the package also looks good to me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
Ali Erdinc Koroglu aekoroglu@linux.intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(topazus@outlook.c | |om)
--- Comment #9 from Ali Erdinc Koroglu aekoroglu@linux.intel.com --- Dear @topazus@outlook.com , could you please unset and reset the approved flag so that I can submit the new repo request. Thank you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? |needinfo?(topazus@outlook.c | |om) |
--- Comment #10 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Of course.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/intel-metee
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193156
Ali Erdinc Koroglu aekoroglu@linux.intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2024-02-08 09:07:27
--- Comment #12 from Ali Erdinc Koroglu aekoroglu@linux.intel.com --- Thank you
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com