[Bug 549821] Review Request: dcap - Client Tools for dCache
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Mar 7 15:18:42 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=549821
Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |steve.traylen at cern.ch
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |steve.traylen at cern.ch
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> 2010-03-07 10:18:35 EST ---
Review: dcap-1.2.44-2.fc14.src.rpm
Date: March 7th 2010
Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2036638
* MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted in the review.
$ rpmlint SPECS/dcap.spec RPMS/x86_64/dcap-* \
SRPMS/dcap-1.2.44-2.fc14.src.rpm
SPECS/dcap.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: dcap-1.2.44.tar.gz
dcap.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached
dcap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dCache -> d Cache, cache,
cached
dcap.x86_64: W: no-documentation
dcap-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache, cache,
cached
dcap-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dCache -> d Cache,
cache, cached
dcap-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
dcap-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache, cache,
cached
dcap-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dCache -> d Cache,
cache, cached
dcap-tunnel-gsi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache,
cache, cached
dcap-tunnel-gsi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug
in, plug-in, plugging
dcap-tunnel-gsi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs,
lib, lbs
dcap-tunnel-gsi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run
time, run-time, untimely
dcap-tunnel-krb.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Kerberos -> Kerosene,
Kerbside, Cerberus
dcap-tunnel-krb.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache,
cache, cached
dcap-tunnel-krb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kerberos ->
kerosene, kerbside, Cerberus
dcap-tunnel-krb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug
in, plug-in, plugging
dcap-tunnel-krb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs,
lib, lbs
dcap-tunnel-krb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run
time, run-time, untimely
dcap-tunnel-ssl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache,
cache, cached
dcap-tunnel-ssl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug
in, plug-in, plugging
dcap-tunnel-ssl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs,
lib, lbs
dcap-tunnel-ssl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run
time, run-time, untimely
dcap-tunnel-ssl.x86_64: W: no-documentation
dcap-tunnel-telnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache,
cache, cached
dcap-tunnel-telnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin ->
plug in, plug-in, plugging
dcap-tunnel-telnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs ->
lobs, lib, lbs
dcap-tunnel-telnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime ->
run time, run-time, untimely
dcap-tunnel-telnet.x86_64: W: no-documentation
dcap.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached
dcap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dCache -> d Cache, cache,
cached
dcap.src: W: non-coherent-filename dcap-1.2.44-2.fc14.src.rpm
dcap-1.2.44-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm
dcap.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dcap-1.2.44.tar.gz
9 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 33 warnings.
YES. All the spelling errors are acceptable, libs, plugins and runtime are in
common
usage.
* MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
YES.
* MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name},
in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
YES.
* MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
YES. In particular the CFLAGS being used
gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -g -I. -fPIC -Wall -pedantic
-pipe -D_REENTRANT -DLIBC_SYSCALLS -DOPEN_SYM=\"open\" -DCLOSE_SYM=\"close\"
-DREAD_SYM=\"read\" -DWRITE_SYM=\"write\" -DLSEEK_SYM=\"lseek\"
-DLSEEK64_SYM=\"lseek64\" -DPREAD_SYM=\"pread\" -DPREAD64_SYM=\"pread64\"
-DPWRITE_SYM=\"pwrite\" -DPWRITE64_SYM=\"pwrite64\" -DSTAT_SYM=\"__xstat\"
-DSTAT64_SYM=\"__xstat64\" -DFSTAT64_SYM=\"__fxstat64\"
-DLSTAT_SYM=\"__lxstat\" -DLSTAT64_SYM=\"__lxstat64\" -DFSTAT_SYM=\"__fxstat\"
-DFSYNC_SYM=\"fsync\" -DDUP_SYM=\"dup\" -DOPENDIR_SYM=\"opendir\"
-DCLOSEDIR_SYM=\"closedir\" -DREADDIR_SYM=\"readdir\"
-DREADDIR64_SYM=\"readdir64\" -DTELLDIR_SYM=\"telldir\"
-DSEEKDIR_SYM=\"seekdir\" -DUNLINK_SYM=\"unlink\" -DRMDIR_SYM=\"rmdir\"
-DMKDIR_SYM=\"mkdir\" -DCHMOD_SYM=\"chmod\" -DACCESS_SYM=\"access\"
-DRENAME_SYM=\"rename\" -DCHOWN_SYM=\"chown\" -DWRITEV_SYM=\"writev\"
-DREADV_SYM=\"readv\" -D_GNU_SOURCE -c -o dcap.o dcap.c
which at least includes all of '%{optflags}.
* MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
YES. LGPLv2+ and BSD.
* MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
NO:
There's a couple of files that look might they may be burrowed from elsewhere.
getopt.c is a BSD one so maybe the main package should also be BSD.
addler32.c looks to have been burrowed from zlib.
* 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.
YES: COPYING.LIB and LICENSE file present.
* MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
YES:
* MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
YES:
* 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.
YES: But see general comment below about versions.
* MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
YES.
* 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.
YES.
* 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.
YES.
* MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is
strictly forbidden.
YES.
* 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.
YES.
* MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
YES. There is no obvious adler32 lib?
* 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.
YES. Not relocatable.
* 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.
YES.
* MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the
spec file's %files listings.
YES.
* 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.
YES.
* MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
YES.
* MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
YES.
* MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
YES.
* 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).
YES.
* 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.
YES.
* MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
YES.
* MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
YES.
* MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
YES.
* 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.
YES.
* MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require
the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
YES.
* MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.[21]
YES.
* 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.
YES.
* 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.
YES.
* MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
YES.
* MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
YES.
General comments: The source is generated with.
# svn co http://svn.dcache.org/dCache/tags/dcap-1.9.3-7 \
# dcap-1.2.44
How does 1.9.3-7 map to dcap-1.2.44 , maybe a comment to get the
version out of dcap_version.c is needed just to make it
clearer.
--
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