https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
Bug ID: 1374035 Summary: Review Request: pimd - The original PIM-SM multicast routing daemon Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: linville@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://linville.fedorapeople.org/pimd.spec SRPM URL: https://linville.fedorapeople.org/pimd-2.3.2-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: pimd is a lightweight, stand-alone PIM-SM/SSM multicast routing daemon available under the free 3-clause BSD license. This is the restored original version from University of Southern California, by Ahmed Helmy, Rusty Eddy and Pavlin Ivanov Radoslavov. Fedora Account System Username: linville
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
Neil Horman nhorman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nhorman@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |nhorman@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
Neil Horman nhorman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |linville@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(linville@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #1 from Neil Horman nhorman@redhat.com --- ackage 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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* BSD", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "ISC", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/nhorman/1374035-pimd/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. I think you want a unit file here so you can start this as a service, no?
[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 112640 bytes in 12 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]: 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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr. [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.===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [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. [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 pimd- debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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.
I think the only thing I noted is the want of a systemd unit file so you can start this as a daemon.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
John W. Linville linville@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|needinfo?(linville@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #2 from John W. Linville linville@redhat.com --- systemd unit seems reasonable, I completely overlooked that...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
Neil Horman nhorman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(linville@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #3 from Neil Horman nhorman@redhat.com --- I'll ack as soon as you chuck that in.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
John W. Linville linville@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(linville@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #4 from John W. Linville linville@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://linville.fedorapeople.org/pimd.spec SRPM URL: https://linville.fedorapeople.org/pimd-2.3.2-2.fc24.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
Neil Horman nhorman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ | |needinfo?(linville@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #5 from Neil Horman nhorman@redhat.com --- looks good, thanks!
ACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
John W. Linville linville@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nhorman@redhat.com |linville@redhat.com Flags|needinfo?(linville@redhat.c | |om) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/pimd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pimd-2.3.2-3.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5a2920fad0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pimd-2.3.2-3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9a72d1e4a6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
John W. Linville linville@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2016-09-19 15:54:39
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pimd-2.3.2-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5a2920fad0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pimd-2.3.2-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9a72d1e4a6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pimd-2.3.2-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
John W. Linville linville@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed|2016-09-19 15:54:39 |2016-09-27 09:13:51
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pimd-2.3.2-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035
--- Comment #13 from John W. Linville linville@redhat.com --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7542
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla