https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
Bug ID: 1310128 Summary: Review Request: zpaq - Incremental journaling back-up archiver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppisar@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/zpaq/zpaq.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/zpaq/zpaq-7.05-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: This is a journaling archiver optimized for user-level incremental backup of directory trees. It supports AES-256 encryption, 5 multi-threaded compression levels, and content-aware file fragment level deduplication. For backups it adds only files whose date has changed, and keeps both old and new versions. You can roll back the archive date to restore from old versions of the archive. The default compression level is faster than zip usually with better compression. zpaq uses a self-describing compressed format to allow for future improvements without breaking compatibility with older versions of the program.
Fedora Account System Username: ppisar
A library from this package is bundled in lrzip package now. This package will be used for unbundling the library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- ppisar's scratch build of zpaq-7.06-1.fc25.src.rpm for f25 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13210797
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- (In reply to Upstream Release Monitoring from comment #1)
ppisar's scratch build of zpaq-7.06-1.fc25.src.rpm for f25 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13210797
That was a release candidate provided by upstream for tests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
Jan Pokorný jpokorny@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jpokorny@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jpokorny@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #3 from Jan Pokorný jpokorny@redhat.com --- For the moment, just a tiny nit up to your consideration:
rpmlint for zpaq-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libzpaq.so.0.1 /lib64/libm.so.6
Possible solution per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dep...:
--- Makefile.orig 2016-03-07 18:13:32.293963439 +0100 +++ Makefile 2016-03-07 18:14:35.381048568 +0100 @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ $(CXX) -fPIC -DPIC $(CPPFLAGS) $(CXXFLAGS) -o $@ -c libzpaq.cpp
$(SONAME): libzpaq.o - $(CXX) $(LDFLAGS) -shared -Wl,-soname,$(SONAME) -o $@ $< + $(CXX) $(LDFLAGS) -Wl,--as-needed -shared -Wl,-soname,$(SONAME) -o $@ $<
libzpaq.so: $(SONAME) ln -s $(SONAME) libzpaq.so
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- rpmlint does not print the warning in my Fedora 25. Interesting.
It's true that the libm is listed as needed, but I as you can see, I do not pass "-lm" to the compiler, so this looks like a bug in GCC. And if I pass -Wl,--as-needed, the dependency on libm will disappear, but ldd will complain about another library:
$ ldd -u libzpaq.so.0.1 Unused direct dependencies: /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1
I will add the -Wl,--as-needed into LDFLAGS.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- There is an old discussion about it https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg00238.html and the answer was "requiring users to explicitly supply -lm is a bug" because "mathematical functions are part of the standard library".
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #4)
but ldd will complain about another library:
$ ldd -u libzpaq.so.0.1 Unused direct dependencies: /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1
It was my fault. I typed something wrong. It actually works.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #7 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- Update package is on these addresses:
Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/zpaq/zpaq.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/zpaq/zpaq-7.05-1.fc25.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #8 from Jan Pokorný jpokorny@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: coreutils make gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
===== 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.
comment: Per http://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq204.pdf (p.22):
I (Matt Mahoney) am not aware of any patents protecting any of the techniques needed to fully implement a compression or decompression algorithm or product according to this specification. I have not filed for patents on any of the techniques described here and will not do so.
Casual patent search haven't shown anything that would appear to document ZPAQ.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mock/booth/zpaq/zpaq/licensecheck.txt
comment: I wonder if the "combined" licenses doesn't effectively make the library being MIT licensed (you shouldn't touch it unless you agree to MIT). I know MIT is not copyleft, but when the code is directly combined, it's not the same as linking...
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [X]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
comment: If https://github.com/y-256/libdivsufsort (not verified whether this is the authoritative location) ever gets packaged, would be good to reconsider the in-code ("soft") bundling, at least.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [X]: 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 1 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]: 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 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: [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.
comment: Subjective opinion: in this case of "public domain except this well defined part (MIT)" provided in free form within the source files, it's not needed.
[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 zpaq- libs , zpaq-devel
comment: The note is bogus in this case, as "zpaq" RPM carries the binary using the associated library no other subpackage shall require it. -devel requires -libs in a proper way.
[X]: Package functions as described.
comment: Per %check.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
comment: Even newer version packaged for a test [comment 2] :-)
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [X]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [X]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [X]: %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: [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.
Source checksums ---------------- http://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq705.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d8abe3e3620d4c6f3ddc1da149acffa4c24296fd9c74c9d7b62319e308b63334 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d8abe3e3620d4c6f3ddc1da149acffa4c24296fd9c74c9d7b62319e308b63334
===== Additional comments =====
rather important points:
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_vers... In cases where upstream ships unversioned .so library (so this is not needed for plugins, drivers, etc.), the packager MUST try to convince upstream to start versioning it.
minor glitches up to the consideration:
- zpaq.spec: group tag unnecessary [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/packaging:guidelines#tags_and_sections]
- zpaq-7.05-cast-negative-values-in-models-definiton.patch + zpaq-7.05-Silent-a-signess-ambiguity-comparison-warning.patch: s/signess/signedness/
notes:
- rpmlint: zpaq-libs.x86_64: w: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libzpaq.so.0.1 libzpaq::error(char const*) -- apparently a symbol to be delived by the library user
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #9 from Jan Pokorný jpokorny@redhat.com --- Petře, please:
- disregard "These BR are not needed: coreutils make gcc-c++", apparently this has been already changed
- see the in-line comments (in part, to review the review)
- what's important: - have you tried convincing upstream to version the library? - will libdivsufsort be used as yet another entry in the chained unbundling? - should not -libs package declare mere MIT license in case libdivsufsort part will not be unbundled?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #10 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #9)
- have you tried convincing upstream to version the library?
I sent upstream all the patches. The next version contains two my patches. It does not contain the patch for building as a library. I did not receive any other response from the upstream. Therefore I conclude upstream is not interested in building a shared library.
- will libdivsufsort be used as yet another entry in the chained unbundling?
I did not think about unbundling it because it's pasted into middle of a source file. But I can add a "bundled(libdivsufsort)" Provides and then try to unbundle it.
The linked upstream http://code.google.com/p/libdivsufsort/ does not exist anymore. This metadata mirror http://www.antepedia.com/detail/p/libdivsufsort.html lists 2.0.1 as the latest release and the links to source archive still work.
There seems to be https://github.com/lh3/libdivsufsort and more recent https://github.com/y-256/libdivsufsort. Thank you for the link.
- should not -libs package declare mere MIT license in case libdivsufsort part will not be unbundled?
Only the libdivsufsort code is MIT. zpaq and zpaq-devel packages could be marked as "Public Domain" only. After unbundling, zpaq-libs could also be marked so. But I haven't yet verified unbundling is possible.
I wonder if the "combined" licenses doesn't effectively make the library being MIT licensed (you shouldn't touch it unless you agree to MIT).
Whatever "combined" means, listing all involved licenses does not harm. And it's more accurate because on source level, some lines have one license, other lines have other license.
Subjective opinion: in this case of "public domain except this well defined part (MIT)" provided in free form within the source files, it's not needed.
This is good point. Except that actually means a binary package must provide the libdivsufsort copyright and license text in addition to the shared library. I will extract it from the source and package it as a %license.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #11 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- I added the bundled(libdivsufsort) Provide, the libdivsufsort copying text and I changes the License tag so only zpaq-libs is MIT and Public Domain. I hope that's everything.
Updated package is on these addresses:
Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/zpaq/zpaq.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/zpaq/zpaq-7.05-1.fc25.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #12 from Jan Pokorný jpokorny@redhat.com --- Sorry for staling this a bit.
All looks good, but still there's one thing that could link zpaq to libdivsufsort better. I've found that there's a "lite" version of libdivsufsort-2.0.0 that directly corresponds to the embedded code:
https://libdivsufsort.googlecode.com/files/libdivsufsort-lite.zip (via http://web.archive.org/web/20160122130127/https://code.google.com/p/libdivsu... as I cannot access the original address)
Then, the note about the changed types would become spurious, and the more probable embedding scenario would get documented.
Will approve (I swear!) as soon as this is responded to (strong resistence against this or evidence from upstream that original scenario was indeed followed also counts).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #13 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- I changed the comment and renamed the extracted license file. You should have become archeologist.
Updated package is on the same addresses.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
Jan Pokorný jpokorny@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Jan Pokorný jpokorny@redhat.com --- No more comments :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/zpaq
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |zpaq-7.05-1.fc25 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2016-04-06 11:42:20
--- Comment #16 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review and the repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla