gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.reviews

[Bug 823444] Review Request: libmd - MD2, MD4, and MD5 encryptionlibrary, taken from FreeBSD

2012-05-25T15:27:18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823444

Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh< at >redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh< at >redhat.com> ---
tl;dr version:
License should be "Copyright only", apparently rpmlint doesn't like the capital
O. Otherwise this is fine, so I'm going to approve it. Please just fix that
typo before building.





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]

FAIL

[sgallagh< at >sgallagh520 SRPMS]$ rpmlint  ./libmd-0.1-3.fc17.src.rpm
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libmd-* 
libmd.src: W: invalid-license Copyright Only
libmd.x86_64: W: invalid-license Copyright Only
libmd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Copyright Only
libmd-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license Copyright Only
libmd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.



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] .
PASS



MUST: The package must meet the Packaging 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]
PASS



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



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



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.
PASS



MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
PASS (tested on F17 x86_64)



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]
N/A



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.
PASS



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



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]
PASS



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]
N/A



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]
PASS



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: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [19]
N/A



MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [20]
PASS



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]
PASS



MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.[19]
PASS



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]
N/A



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]
PASS



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. [25]
N/A



SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26]
FAIL




SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27]
PASS: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4100837



SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures. [28]
PASS: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4100837



SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Not performed (no clear directions on usage)



SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29]
N/A



SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency. [21]
N/A



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. [30]
n/A



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. [31]
N/A



SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32]
N/A

[Bug 825250] Review Request: guacamole-ext - Common interfaces forextending the main Guacamole web application

2012-05-25T15:17:38

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825250

--- Comment #6 from Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster< at >gmail.com> ---
Created attachment 586891
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=586891&action=edit
build.log from local mock build

[Bug 825250] Review Request: guacamole-ext - Common interfaces forextending the main Guacamole web application

2012-05-25T15:16:58

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825250

Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster< at >gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #5 from Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster< at >gmail.com> ---
Note: this package successfully built in mock on my computer against the
guacamole-common
package from bug 824798. I will attach the build.log.

Looks good.

APPROVED

Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[-]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/mef3/825250/guacamole-ext-0.6.0.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : 224ae706e7cc2e1eb5ffee368996b907
  MD5SUM upstream package : 224ae706e7cc2e1eb5ffee368996b907

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[-]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.


==== Java ====
[-]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
     removed prior to building
[x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[-]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version}
     symlink)
[x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)


==== Maven ====
[x]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
     Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
[x]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: MUST Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
     jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[-]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps)
     even when building with ant
[x]: MUST Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: MUST Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms


Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3
External plugins:

[Bug 819951] Review Request: ostree - Linux-based operating systemdevelop/build/deploy tool

2012-05-25T15:14:02

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819951

--- Comment #2 from Colin Walters <walters< at >redhat.com> ---
New upstream version SRPM:
http://fedorapeople.org/~walters/ostree/ostree-2012.7-1.fc16.src.rpm

[Bug 822730] Review Request: laptop-mode-tools - Tools for powersavings based on battery/AC status

2012-05-25T15:12:04

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822730

--- Comment #4 from Adrian Alves <aalves< at >gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #3)

I know i used the spec from dag I already said that. But i made the changes to
make it works on fedora did u try it or make any review about it?

[Bug 825250] Review Request: guacamole-ext - Common interfaces forextending the main Guacamole web application

2012-05-25T15:02:15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825250

--- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni <negativo17< at >gmail.com> ---
Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-ext.spec
SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-ext-0.6.0-3.fc17.src.rpm

- Fixed .pom file installation.

(Comment in bug 824798)

Thanks,
--Simone

[Bug 824798] Review Request: guacamole-common - The core Javalibrary used by the Guacamole web application

2012-05-25T15:01:05

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824798

--- Comment #9 from Simone Caronni <negativo17< at >gmail.com> ---
Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-common.spec
SRPM URL:
http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-common-0.6.0-4.fc17.src.rpm

Yep. You're absolutely right.

- Fixed .pom file installation.
- Changed ownership from jar to containing directory.

Thanks,
--Simone

[Bug 823444] Review Request: libmd - MD2, MD4, and MD5 encryptionlibrary, taken from FreeBSD

2012-05-25T14:56:19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823444

--- Comment #2 from Simone Caronni <negativo17< at >gmail.com> ---
Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/libmd.spec
SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/libmd-0.1-3.fc17.src.rpm

- Fixed and added comment.

Thanks,
--Simone

[Bug 824798] Review Request: guacamole-common - The core Javalibrary used by the Guacamole web application

2012-05-25T14:51:31

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824798

Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster< at >gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mefoster< at >gmail.com

--- Comment #8 from Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster< at >gmail.com> ---
Sorry, I wasn't clear -- you also need to change the filename that you use for
the pom to correspond to the %add_maven_depmap call. So it should also be
    install -pm 644 pom.xml
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP.guacamole-%{name}.pom
And you need to change the filename in the %files directory too

And some package -- I guess probably this one? -- needs to own the
%{_javadir}/guacamole directory too.

[Bug 824798] Review Request: guacamole-common - The core Javalibrary used by the Guacamole web application

2012-05-25T14:47:56

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824798

--- Comment #7 from Simone Caronni <negativo17< at >gmail.com> ---
Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-common.spec
SRPM URL:
http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-common-0.6.0-3.fc17.src.rpm

Fixed %add_maven_depmap usage as per bug #825250

[Bug 824798] Review Request: guacamole-common - The core Javalibrary used by the Guacamole web application

2012-05-25T14:46:09

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824798

Simone Caronni <negativo17< at >gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Depends On|                            |825250

[Bug 825250] Review Request: guacamole-ext - Common interfaces forextending the main Guacamole web application

2012-05-25T14:46:09

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825250

Simone Caronni <negativo17< at >gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |824798

--- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni <negativo17< at >gmail.com> ---
I fixed the macro usage in both; recreated guacamole-common and added it as a
dependency to this one.

Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-ext.spec
SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-ext-0.6.0-2.fc17.src.rpm

Many thanks,
--Simone

[Bug 823444] Review Request: libmd - MD2, MD4, and MD5 encryptionlibrary, taken from FreeBSD

2012-05-25T14:35:08

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823444

--- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa< at >redhat.com> ---
The license on this should be "Copyright Only", see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#What_about_the_RSA_license_on_their_MD5_implementation.3F_Isn.27t_that_GPL-incompatible.3F

[Bug 823444] Review Request: libmd - MD2, MD4, and MD5 encryptionlibrary, taken from FreeBSD

2012-05-25T14:34:37

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823444

Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh< at >redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |sgallagh< at >redhat.com
           Assignee|nobody< at >fedoraproject.org    |sgallagh< at >redhat.com
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 823446] Review Request: libradius - This is a library togenerate RADIUS authentication request

2012-05-25T14:33:39

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823446

--- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher< at >gmail.com> ---
Stephen, FYI, this requires libmd.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823444

[Bug 825250] Review Request: guacamole-ext - Common interfaces forextending the main Guacamole web application

2012-05-25T14:29:46

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825250

--- Comment #2 from Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster< at >gmail.com> ---
This doesn't build against the newly-added guacamole-common package from bug
824798. This is because guacamole-common has
    %add_maven_depmap JPP-%{name}.pom guacamole/%{name}.jar
but with a jar file in /usr/share/java/guacamole, the call should instead be
    %add_maven_depmap JPP.guacamole-%{name}.pom guacamole/%{name}.jar

I recently wrote a description of the use cases for %add_maven_depmap which
might be useful:
   
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Akurtakov/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate#add_maven_depmap_macro

[Bug 823446] Review Request: libradius - This is a library togenerate RADIUS authentication request

2012-05-25T14:27:06

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823446

Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh< at >redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |sgallagh< at >redhat.com
           Assignee|nobody< at >fedoraproject.org    |sgallagh< at >redhat.com
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 825250] Review Request: guacamole-ext - Common interfaces forextending the main Guacamole web application

2012-05-25T14:06:31

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825250

--- Comment #1 from Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster< at >gmail.com> ---
I will review this package

[Bug 825250] Review Request: guacamole-ext - Common interfaces forextending the main Guacamole web application

2012-05-25T14:06:53

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825250

Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster< at >gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 825250] Review Request: guacamole-ext - Common interfaces forextending the main Guacamole web application

2012-05-25T14:06:22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825250

Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster< at >gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

[Bug 825250] Review Request: guacamole-ext - Common interfaces forextending the main Guacamole web application

2012-05-25T14:06:27

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825250

Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster< at >gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|nobody< at >fedoraproject.org    |mefoster< at >gmail.com