https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368742 --- Comment #5 from Lukas Javorsky <ljavorsk@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT Open Group variant", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "Public domain", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 and/or Public domain", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 and/or NTP License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* PHP License v3.01", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "MIT License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* Public domain", "NTP License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later and/or PHP License v3.01", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 and/or zlib License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "zlib License", "OpenSSL License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "FSF All Permissive License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License v2 only", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later and/or GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 23108 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/mariadb11.8/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/selinux/packages, /usr/share/selinux, /etc/logrotate.d, /usr/share/selinux/packages/targeted, /usr/lib64/security, /etc/security [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 31641 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Package uses hardened build flags if required to. Note: suid files: auth_pam_tool [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in mariadb11.8-server [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mariadb11.8-client-utils , mariadb11.8-common , mariadb11.8-errmsg , mariadb11.8-server-galera , mariadb11.8-server , mariadb11.8-oqgraph- engine , mariadb11.8-connect-engine , mariadb11.8-backup , mariadb11.8-rocksdb-engine , mariadb11.8-cracklib-password-check , mariadb11.8-gssapi-server , mariadb11.8-pam , mariadb11.8-sphinx- engine , mariadb11.8-s3-engine , mariadb11.8-server-utils , mariadb11.8-devel , mariadb11.8-embedded , mariadb11.8-embedded-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: 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. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define package_version 11.8.1, %define majorversion %(echo %{package_version} | cut -d'.' -f1-2 ), %define conflict_with_other_streams() %{expand:Provides: %{majorname}%{?1:-%{1}}-anyConflicts: %{majorname}%{?1:-%{1}}-any}, %define mariadbXX_if_default() %{expand:Provides: mariadb%{majorversion}%{?1:-%{1}} = %{sameevr}Provides: mariadb%{majorversion}%{?1:-%{1}}%{?_isa} = %{sameevr}}, %define mariadbXX_if_default() %{nil}, %define virtual_conflicts_and_provides() %{expand:%conflict_with_other_streams %{**}%mariadbXX_if_default %{**}} [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3348480 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. ## My Notes > - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. > Note: Not a valid SPDX expression '( GPL-2.0-only OR Apache-2.0 ) AND ( > GPL-2.0-or-later OR Apache-2.0 ) AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND > CC-BY-4.0 AND GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND > ( GPL-3.0-or-later WITH Bison-exception-2.2 ) AND LGPL-2.0-only AND > LGPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-only AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND OpenSSL AND > MIT AND OFL-1.1 AND CC0-1.0 AND PHP-3.0 AND PHP-3.01 AND zlib AND dtoa > AND FSFAP AND blessing AND Info-ZIP AND Boehm-GC'. > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 This has been checked manually and verified that Licenses are in correct SPDX format > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. There is no breakdown in the specfile However, I found the commit [1] that added the licenses, and it explains it all, which is the purpose here. > [!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. SELinux should be consulted with the SELinux team. We’ve encountered this a few months ago with the credcheck package [2], where they helped to do it by the book. >[!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 31641 bytes in 3 files. Maybe it’s worth to create this subpackage > [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Is there a reason why it’s not used in [3]? > Sources Sources in the fork are not updated, so keep that in mind [4] > [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. It does contain `LICENSE.clustercheck`, but it’s justified [5] > [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream > publishes signatures. > Note: gpgverify is not used. Upstream doesn’t provide GPG signatures > mariadb11.8.spec:621: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(rocksdb) Include the version of rocksdb > mariadb11.8-server.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/wsrep_sst_common This should be resolved. I can also see there has been some tries in the past, but it wasn’t finished [7] > mariadb11.8-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided mariadb11.8-libs Are the Obsoletes really necessary here? The problem is that it obsoletes it, but doesn’t Provide it, which may cause some issues in the dnf transaction. > mariadb11.8-server-galera.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/clustercheck 640 Are the permissions set correctly here [8]? > mariadb11.8.spec:1484: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package %{pkgname}-common %{_libdir}/%{majorname}/plugin/dialog.so > mariadb11.8.spec:1485: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package %{pkgname}-common %{_libdir}/%{majorname}/plugin/mysql_clear_password.so The noarch packages should not use the %{_libdir} according to the FHS [9] > mariadb11.8-sphinx-engine.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libsphinxclient This dependency should be handled by dnf automatically according to the Packaging Guidelines [10]. If it’s not, it should be documented so the explicit dependency is justified. > mariadb11.8.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/mariadb SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > mariadb11.8.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/mariadb-admin SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > mariadb11.8.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/mariadb-binlog SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > mariadb11.8.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/mariadb-check SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > mariadb11.8.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/mariadb-dump SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > mariadb11.8.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/mariadb-import SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > mariadb11.8.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/mariadb-show SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > mariadb11.8.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/mariadb-slap SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > mariadb11.8-backup.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/mariadb-backup SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > mariadb11.8-embedded.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libmariadbd.so.19 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > mariadb11.8-server.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/libexec/mariadbd SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list Is this at least reported to upstream? [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/ndavidov/rpms/mariadb10.11/c/285e6186?branch=rebase_to_11.8 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358822 [3] https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/ndavidov/rpms/mariadb10.11/blob/rebase_to_11.8/f/mariadb11.8.spec#_1037 [4] https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/ndavidov/rpms/mariadb10.11/blob/rebase_to_11.8/f/sources#_1 [5] https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/ndavidov/rpms/mariadb10.11/blob/rebase_to_11.8/f/mariadb11.8.spec#_196 [6] https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/ndavidov/rpms/mariadb10.11/blob/rebase_to_11.8/f/mariadb11.8.spec#_618 [7] https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/ndavidov/rpms/mariadb10.11/blob/rebase_to_11.8/f/mariadb11.8.spec#_1557 [8] https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/ndavidov/rpms/mariadb10.11/blob/rebase_to_11.8/f/mariadb11.8.spec#_1525 [9] https://www.pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/203 [10] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requires -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368742 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202368742%23c5 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
