[Bug 517763] Review Request: voms - Virtual Organization Membership Service

Fri Sep 4 14:10:35 UTC 2009

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=517763

--- Comment #9 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch>  2009-09-04 10:10:34 EDT ---
Formal review of voms package.

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

$ rpmlint voms-1.9.11-3.fc11.src.rpm rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/voms-
voms.src:438: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package vomsjapi %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
  Explained in comment #2
voms.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/vomses
  Its and empty directory for a subsequent modular configuration - fine.
  But see point below.
voms-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on voms/voms-libs/libvoms
  Explained in comment #2
voms-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
  Fine
voms-server.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/voms voms
voms-server.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/voms voms
  Correct the voms service running as voms logs to /var/log/voms
voms-server.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/voms
  voms handles its own logrotation.
voms-server.x86_64: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/voms
  Explained in comment #2
voms-server.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name voms ('voms-server',
'voms-serverd')
  Service is called vomsd. (In fact this really should be valid with rpmlint,
will submit a bug later)

6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.

# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
It does.
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
It does
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
It does
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
It does ASL 2.0
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
Yes , 
# 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]
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
It is
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
It is
# 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 CVS URL works.
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
It built on my x86_64 f11 within mock.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1654893

# 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]
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1654893
# 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.[9]
Not relavent.
# 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]
$ rpm -q --scripts voms
postinstall program: /sbin/ldconfig
postuninstall program: /sbin/ldconfig
So fine.
# 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. [11]
Not relavent.
# 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. [12]
Hmm it looks lie /usr/share/m4 is created but not owned by this package.
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. [13]
It does not.
# 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. [14]
Yes
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
Yes
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
Yes
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
It does.
# 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]
They are.
# 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]
It does.
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
They are.
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
Not relavent.
# MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). [21]
Not relavent.
# 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]
They are.
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [22]
It does.
# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
It does not.
# 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.
[23]
Not realvent.
# 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. [24]
It does not.
# MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25]
It does.
# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26]
#
They are.

So to wrap up two things:

1) On upgrade something odd happens.

rpm -Uvh voms-*
    1:voms                   warning: /etc/vomses created as /etc/vomses.rpmnew

and results in 

$ ls -ld /etc/vomses /etc/vomses.rpmnew 
drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 2009-08-31 10:44 /etc/vomses
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root    0 2009-09-04 15:35 /etc/vomses.rpmnew

which is just odd.

I would guess adding a %dir sorts this out but am unsure.
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/vomses

2) I think /usr/share/m4 containing /usr/share/m4/voms.mp4 is created by but
not 
   owned by the %file listing.

3) Lastly
   koji build --scratch dist-f12 voms-.....src.rpm

 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1654893

   clearly has some build problems.

Steve

-- 
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.