https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
Bug ID: 1175270 Summary: Review Request: usbip - USB/IP user-space Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jdieter@lesbg.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://lesloueizeh.com/jdieter/usbip/usbip.spec SRPM URL: http://lesloueizeh.com/jdieter/usbip/usbip-3.17-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This package contains the user-space for the USB/IP protocol. The modules were mainstreamed in 3.17 and should be built in Fedora's kernels soon[1].
Please note that you must have the modules built in order to test and install this package.
Fedora Account System Username: jdieter
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169478#c5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1169478
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169478 [Bug 1169478] Feature request: USB-over-IP (CONFIG_USBIP_CORE) support in Linux kernel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com --- rpmlint output: $ rpmlint ./usbip.spec ./usbip.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: usbip-3.17.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/usbip-3.17-1.fc21.src.rpm usbip.src: W: strange-permission extract_usbip.sh 0755L usbip.src: W: invalid-url Source0: usbip-3.17.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/usbip-3.17-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/usbip-devel-3.17-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm usbip-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The complaints in the spec and SRPM are because we pull the userspace tools out of the kernel source so we don't have a massive SRPM for a <100K package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugzilla.rpmfusion. | |org/show_bug.cgi?id=3436
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|1169478 | Depends On| |1169478
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169478 [Bug 1169478] Feature request: USB-over-IP (CONFIG_USBIP_CORE) support in Linux kernel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270 Bug 1175270 depends on bug 1169478, which changed state.
Bug 1169478 Summary: Feature request: USB-over-IP (CONFIG_USBIP_CORE) support in Linux kernel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169478
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zbyszek@in.waw.pl Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- 0. A general question: wouldn't this be better build as a part of the kernel package?
1. remove %clean 2. remove %defattr 3. Consider using %license for COPYING 4. Consider adding something like (copied from another package):
# Use the same directory of the main package for subpackage licence and docs %global _docdir_fmt %{name}
This will avoid having a doc/usbip-devel directory with one file (or licenses/usbip-devel directory with one file if you do 3.)
4. Combine the two %systemd_posts into one, it'll reload systemd just once.
5. /etc/default is an abomination. You can incorporate the file into the systemd service file as a comment. If somebody is doing debugging, they can create /run/systemd/system/usbip-server.d/override.conf with updates the options (by the time F22 comes out, systemctl edit usbip-server will do this automatically).
6. Module loading in a service file is very much discouraged. Is is not possible to have the module load automatically? And rmmod in a service file is usually a bad idea because rmmod can interfere with other things. Why is this necessary?
7. Drop After=syslog.target.
Looks good.
===== 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1175270-usbip/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 4 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 %doc. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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: [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in usbip-devel It should be added for (your) sanity. An automatic requires is generated on the library, but it does not include the specific version, and you do not want to have reports for a mismatching main and devel packages.
[ ]: Package functions as described. I didn't test it, but at least the binaries work :)
[?]: Latest version is packaged. I guess that the version depeneds on the branch. It should be 3.18 for rawhide.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [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: [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. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: usbip-3.17-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm usbip-devel-3.17-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm usbip-3.17-1.fc22.src.rpm usbip-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib usbip.src: W: strange-permission extract_usbip.sh 0755L usbip.src: W: invalid-url Source0: usbip-3.17.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- <mock-chroot>[root@bupkis /]# rpmlint usbip-devel usbip usbip-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. <mock-chroot>[root@bupkis /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- usbip-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libusbip.so.0()(64bit) usbip(x86-64)
usbip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(usbip) hwdata kmod(usbip-core.ko) kmod(usbip-host.ko) kmod(vhci-hcd.ko) libc.so.6()(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) libusbip.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd
Provides -------- usbip-devel: usbip-devel usbip-devel(x86-64)
usbip: config(usbip) libusbip.so.0()(64bit) usbip usbip(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1175270 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com --- Thanks so much for the review!!! Comments are inline:
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2)
- A general question: wouldn't this be better build as a part of the kernel
package?
The kernel developers don't want to have to deal maintaining the userspace (which is fair enough). See the last part of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169478#c6 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169478#c11.
- remove %clean
Done
- remove %defattr
Done
- Consider using %license for COPYING
Done
- Consider adding something like (copied from another package):
# Use the same directory of the main package for subpackage licence and docs %global _docdir_fmt %{name}
This will avoid having a doc/usbip-devel directory with one file (or licenses/usbip-devel directory with one file if you do 3.)
Done
- Combine the two %systemd_posts into one, it'll reload systemd just once.
Done.
- /etc/default is an abomination. You can incorporate the file into the
systemd service file as a comment. If somebody is doing debugging, they can create /run/systemd/system/usbip-server.d/override.conf with updates the options (by the time F22 comes out, systemctl edit usbip-server will do this automatically).
I agree. The problem is that this package has been in RPM Fusion with the /etc/default config file, so I'm a bit hesitant to possibly break people's configs. I have removed it for the moment, but if I get any bug reports, I will probably put it back in.
- Module loading in a service file is very much discouraged. Is is not
possible to have the module load automatically? And rmmod in a service file is usually a bad idea because rmmod can interfere with other things. Why is this necessary?
First off, I agree on rmmod and have removed those.
As for module loading, I don't think there's any other way of loading them only when they're needed. It's not like we can watch for the appearance of a device or anything like that, and, because there are separate modules for server and client, I'd rather not have them both automatically loaded at startup.
- Drop After=syslog.target.
Done.
<snip>
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in usbip-devel It should be added for (your) sanity. An automatic requires is generated on the library, but it does not include the specific version, and you do not want to have reports for a mismatching main and devel packages.
I think this might be a false positive. I do have that line exactly as is for the -devel subpackage.
<snip>
[?]: Latest version is packaged. I guess that the version depeneds on the branch. It should be 3.18 for rawhide.
Updating to 3.18.
Updated URLs: Spec URL: http://lesloueizeh.com/jdieter/usbip/usbip.spec SRPM URL: http://lesloueizeh.com/jdieter/usbip/usbip-3.18-1.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com ---
%configure --disable-static --with-usbids-dir=/usr/share/hwdata
replace /usr/share with %{_datadir}
make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install
replace with %make_install
install -m ......
for all install calls use '-p' flag to preserver datetime
Group: ....
drop this tag
other looks good to me
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com --- Thanks for your input. Comments inline:
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #4)
%configure --disable-static --with-usbids-dir=/usr/share/hwdata
replace /usr/share with %{_datadir}
Done.
make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install
replace with %make_install
Done.
install -m ......
for all install calls use '-p' flag to preserver datetime
Done.
Group: ....
drop this tag
According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag, it's optional and I'd rather keep it, thanks.
other looks good to me
Thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com --- Updated URLs: Spec URL: http://lesloueizeh.com/jdieter/usbip/usbip.spec SRPM URL: http://lesloueizeh.com/jdieter/usbip/usbip-3.18-2.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- One more thing: please extend the %description a bit, so that a person who initially has no idea what this is (and/or does not know the acronyms) can easily understand what this package does.
Package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7)
One more thing: please extend the %description a bit, so that a person who initially has no idea what this is (and/or does not know the acronyms) can easily understand what this package does.
Done.
Thanks so much for the review!!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: usbip Short Description: USB/IP user-space Upstream URL: http://usbip.sourceforge.net Owners: jdieter Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- usbip-3.17-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/usbip-3.17-3.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- usbip-3.17-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |usbip-3.17-3.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-01-26 21:55:35
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- usbip-3.17-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
Vladimir Stackov amigo.elite@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |amigo.elite@gmail.com, | |jdieter@lesbg.com Flags| |needinfo?(jdieter@lesbg.com | |)
--- Comment #14 from Vladimir Stackov amigo.elite@gmail.com --- Any plans for EL6/7? You have requested branching but there is no spec. If you need some help with packaging or testing feel free to contact me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jdieter@lesbg.com | |) |
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com --- I'd happily maintain it for both EL6/7, but the kernel modules would need to be backported and built in the EL kernels, which requires someone with a @redhat.com address.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175270
--- Comment #16 from Vladimir Stackov amigo.elite@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #15)
I'd happily maintain it for both EL6/7, but the kernel modules would need to be backported and built in the EL kernels, which requires someone with a @redhat.com address.
You are right... I forgot that Fedora packaging policy prohibits kmod packages.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla