https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460458
Bug ID: 1460458 Summary: Review Request: upm - A high level library for sensors and actuators Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pbrobinson@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 1269538 (IoT)
SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/upm.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/upm-1.3.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: UPM is a high level repository that provides software drivers for a wide variety of commonly used sensors and actuators. These software drivers interact with the underlying hardware platform through calls to MRAA APIs.
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19955682
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460458
Paul Whalen pwhalen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pwhalen@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pwhalen@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460458
Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460458
--- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com --- SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/upm.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/upm-1.5.0-1.fc27.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22398901
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460458
--- Comment #2 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com --- SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/upm.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/upm-1.7.0-1.fc29.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29580899
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460458
--- Comment #3 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com --- Just a one liner for nodejs-upm -> nodejs-mraa dependency
SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/upm-1.7.0-2.fc29.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460458
Paul Whalen pwhalen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Paul Whalen pwhalen@redhat.com ---
A couple of issues below to fix up before you commit but other than that, APPROVED
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - does not use parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. - upm-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/include/upm/upm_utilities.hpp
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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.
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: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* BSL", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSL (v1.0)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like) CC by (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 915 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pwhalen/reviews/1460458-upm/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [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. [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 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]: 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 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
Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in upm- devel , python3-upm , nodejs-upm , upm-debuginfo , upm-debugsource [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [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: upm-1.7.0-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm upm-devel-1.7.0-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm python3-upm-1.7.0-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm nodejs-upm-1.7.0-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm upm-debuginfo-1.7.0-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm upm-debugsource-1.7.0-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm upm-1.7.0-2.fc29.src.rpm upm.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libupm-groveultrasonic.so.1.7.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 upm.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libupm-ultrasonic.so.1.7.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 upm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation upm-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/include/upm/upm_utilities.hpp python3-upm.x86_64: W: no-documentation nodejs-upm.x86_64: W: no-documentation nodejs-upm.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink (** note removed to improve readability) 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 223 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/intel-iot-devkit/upm/archive/v1.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 66ac1a869b0b06144a3ebe96c20b2e4195ec9c1879d14bde77ac706d237dfca8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 66ac1a869b0b06144a3ebe96c20b2e4195ec9c1879d14bde77ac706d237dfca8
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1460458 -m fedora-29-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-29-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460458
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/upm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460458
Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2018-09-17 17:11:27
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com