[Bug 548607] Review Request: pvs-sbcl - SRI's Prototype Verification System

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jan 2 19:43:45 UTC 2010


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548607





--- Comment #25 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler at dwheeler.com>  2010-01-02 14:43:43 EDT ---
Okay, I reviewed the package using the guideline checklist at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines

I have questions/issues for two points:
    * MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
NO.  There are some files that are stored as shared library files:
/usr/lib64/pvs/bin/ix86_64-Linux/runtime/
Granted, these probably aren't shared by other packages, but they MIGHT be.
    * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package. [20]
??? NOT SURE.  There are ".so" files not in a -devel package, but it's not
clear that they SHOULD be in a -devel package.

Comments?  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something?

There are a few things I need to do, too. I can't check the svn version at this
instant (can't download), so I hope to do that soon.  I also intend to do a
koji build, which will answer some.

Other than that, looks like we're off.  Here's the guideline checklist results:

    *  MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.[1]

OK.  No warnings or errors.

    * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.

OK.

    * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2].

OK.

    * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

OK.  At least, I don't see any violations.

    * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.

OK (GPLv2+).

    * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]

OK.  It has the usual GPL LICENSE file.  The PVS website also specifically
states that it is GPL-licensed:
http://pvs.csl.sri.com/download.shtml

    * MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4]

OK.  See /usr/share/doc/pvs-sbcl-4.2/LICENSE

    * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]

OK.

    * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]

OK.

    * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.

??? I need to check this later.  This package uses an SVN version, to pick up
necessary patches.  The spec file documents that the extraction uses:
 svn export -r 5477 https://spartan.csl.sri.com/svn/public/pvs/trunk pvs-4.2
I'm having trouble downloading from SVN at this moment; I'll try again later.

    * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]

OK.

    * MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]

OK to my knowledge.  I only tried x86, 32-bit and 64-bit.  Koji would answer
this.

    * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.

OK to my knowledge.  Koji would answer this.

    * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]

NA.  Only English.

    * MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]

NO.  There are some files that are stored as shared library files:
/usr/lib64/pvs/bin/ix86_64-Linux/runtime/
Granted, these probably aren't shared by other packages, but they MIGHT be.

    * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]

OK.  There's a "/usr/lib64/pvs/wish", but this is a *directory* not wish
itself.

    * MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]

NA.

    * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]

OK.  I looked at %files, looks okay.

    * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. [14]

OK.  Again, %files looks okay.

    * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line. [15]

The %files section has %defattr(); rpmls looks okay.

    * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]

OK

    * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]

OK

    * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]

OK

    * MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [19]

NA

    * MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [19]

NA

    * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20]

NA

    * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21]

NA

    * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). [22]

NA

    * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package. [20]

??? NOT SURE.  There are ".so" files not in a -devel package, but it's not
clear that they SHOULD be in a -devel package.  Comments?


    * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [23]

NA

    * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[21]

NA

    * MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[24]

OK.  This was added recently as part of the packaging process.

    * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. [25]

OK.

    * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26]

OK.

    * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]
OK.  ASCII.


    *  SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[28]

NA

    * SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[29]

Don't, but not required.

    * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [30]

I'll try to do this later.

    * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures. [31]

??? Partly done.  I used two.  Mock/koji should help determine for the others.

    * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.

OK. I did smoke tests for 32-bit and 64-bit.

    * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [32]

NA.

    * SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. [23]

NA

    * SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [22]

NA

    * SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself. [33] 

NA

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.




More information about the package-review mailing list