[Bug 782220] Review Request: dlm - cluster infrastructure for dlm (distributed lock manager)

Tue Jan 17 16:08:59 UTC 2012

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=782220

--- Comment #5 from Steven Dake <sdake at redhat.com> 2012-01-17 11:08:58 EST ---
When updating packages please bump the version release number and post new
links so an upgrade works properly.

[FAIL] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] 

[sdake at beast SRPMS]$ rpmlint dlm-3.9.0-1.fc16.src.rpm
dlm.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C cluster infrastructure for dlm
(distributed lock manager)
dlm.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C dlm
dlm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userland -> user land,
user-land, slanderous
dlm.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2, GPLv2+, LGPLv2+
dlm.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/d/l/dlm/dlm-3.9.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Recommend capitalizing summary
Recommend changing userland to user land
Recommend changing license to "GPLv2+" (this covers v2)
Recommend making source code available

[sdake at beast x86_64]$ rpmlint dlm-3.9.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
dlm.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C cluster infrastructure for dlm
(distributed lock manager)
dlm.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C dlm
dlm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userland -> user land,
user-land, slanderous
dlm.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2, GPLv2+, LGPLv2+
dlm.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /lib/systemd/system/dlm.service
dlm.x86_64: E: postin-without-chkconfig /etc/rc.d/init.d/dlm
dlm.x86_64: E: preun-without-chkconfig /etc/rc.d/init.d/dlm
dlm.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/dlm
dlm.x86_64: E: no-chkconfig-line /etc/rc.d/init.d/dlm
dlm.x86_64: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/dlm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 5 warnings.

Recommend capitalizing Cluster
Recommend changing userland to user land
Recommend changing license to GPLV2+
/etc/rc.d/init.d/dlm should not be shipped in new fedora packages
/etc/rc.d/init.d/dlm conflicts with /lib/systemd/system/dlm.service
chkconfig warnings can be ignored
looks like rpmlint needs fixing for systemd

[root at beast x86_64]# rpmlint dlm-debuginfo
dlm-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2, GPLv2+, LGPLv2+
dlm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/dlm-3.9.0/dlm_controld/rbtree.c
dlm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/dlm-3.9.0/dlm_controld/rbtree.h
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.

Correct the mailing address of rbtree.h
[root at beast x86_64]# rpmlint dlm-devel-3.9.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
dlm-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on dlm/dlm-libs/libdlm
dlm-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2, GPLv2+, LGPLv2+
dlm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

what originates dlm/dlm-libs/libdlm?
Change license to GPLv2+
ignore no documentation warning

I highly recommend requesting upstream (you?) to include a license file (IE put
in COPYING in the tarball) and include it in all of the RPMS as a %doc section.

[PASS] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .

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

[FAIL] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .

Multiple issues found with rpmlint.  init.d scripts included in new fedora
packages is highly discouraged.  Conflict with init.d and systemd needs
resolution.  Once those are addressed the package would meet guidelines.

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

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

[PASS] 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]

Please request upstream to include a license file in the package.  Ideally all
fedora packages should ship the license as a file in every rpm.

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

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

[FAIL] 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.

Sources are not upstream.

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

builds on x86_64 architecture

[N/A] 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]

[PASS] 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.

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

[PASS] 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]

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

[N/A] 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]

[PASS] 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]
[PASS] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]

[PASS] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with 
executable permissions, for example. [15]

[PASS] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]

[PASS] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]

[N/A] 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). [18]

[N/A] 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. [18]

[PASS] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]

[N/A] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]

[PASS] 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. [19]

[NOTSURE] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]

I think devel should depend on %{name} not %{name}-lib.  I'll do more research
and get back to you on this point.

[PASS] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[20]

[N/A] 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.
[22]

[PASS] 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. [23]

[PASS] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]

-- 
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.