https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536565
Bug ID: 1536565 Summary: Review Request: ntp-refclock - Drivers for hardware reference clocks Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mlichvar@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://mlichvar.fedorapeople.org/tmp/ntp-refclock.spec SRPM URL: https://mlichvar.fedorapeople.org/tmp/ntp-refclock-0.1-1.ntp4.2.8p10.fc28.sr... Description: ntp-refclock is a wrapper for reference clock drivers included in the ntpd daemon, which enables other NTP implementations to use the supported hardware reference clocks for synchronization of the system clock.
It provides a minimal environment for the drivers to be able to run in a separate process, measuring the offset of the system clock relative to the reference clock and sending the measurements to another process controlling the system clock.
Fedora Account System Username: mlichvar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536565
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- I'm not sure using ntp%{ntp_version} in the Release field is approved… Please ask if this is ok on the mailing list.
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. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "ISC BSD (3 clause)", "Beerware NTP", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "NTP", "BSD (2 clause) NTP", "ISC BSD (4 clause)", "ISC BSD (2 clause)", "ISC", "FSF All Permissive", "Beerware", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "ISC Public domain", "GPL (v3)". 1341 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ntp-refclock/review-ntp- refclock/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [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. [-]: 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 419840 bytes in 46 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 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: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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]: 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]: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: ntp-refclock-0.1-1.ntp4.2.8p10.fc28.x86_64.rpm ntp-refclock-debuginfo-0.1-1.ntp4.2.8p10.fc28.x86_64.rpm ntp-refclock-debugsource-0.1-1.ntp4.2.8p10.fc28.x86_64.rpm ntp-refclock-0.1-1.ntp4.2.8p10.fc28.src.rpm ntp-refclock.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ntpd -> DuPont ntp-refclock.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ntp-refclock-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation ntp-refclock.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ntpd -> DuPont 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536565
--- Comment #2 from Miroslav Lichvar mlichvar@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review.
I've asked on the packaging list about the version/release: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536565
--- Comment #3 from Miroslav Lichvar mlichvar@redhat.com --- It was suggested on the list to use Provides: bundled(ntp) instead of adding the ntp version to the release string.
Spec URL: https://mlichvar.fedorapeople.org/tmp/ntp-refclock.spec SRPM URL: https://mlichvar.fedorapeople.org/tmp/ntp-refclock-0.1-2.fc28.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536565
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- All good, package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536565
--- Comment #5 from Miroslav Lichvar mlichvar@redhat.com --- Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536565
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ntp-refclock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536565
Miroslav Lichvar mlichvar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2018-01-25 07:28:05
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com