[Bug 229342] Review Request: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229342





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-03-01 21:44 EST -------
Let's see if I can avoid losing this review because of an intervening comment....

I note 0.3.0 came out yesterday.

Let's check rpmlint:

W: nfs4-acl-tools non-standard-group System Environment/Tools
   Not a problem; group is pretty much meaningless and what you have at least
   seems accurate.

W: nfs4-acl-tools no-version-in-last-changelog
W: nfs4-acl-tools-debuginfo no-version-in-last-changelog
   Changelog entries must include the relevant version info:
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs

W: nfs4-acl-tools no-documentation
   There is documentation included in the tarball, including two contradictory
   license statements.  Great.  But that documentation needs to get into the
   final package.

W: nfs4-acl-tools empty-%post
W: nfs4-acl-tools empty-%preun
W: nfs4-acl-tools empty-%postun
   These should go if there's nothing to put in them.

This package seems to have three licenses, BSD, LGPL and GPL, and it's not
entirely clear to me which parts are under which license.  As a bonus, there
are two COPYING files and one LICENSE file.  They've managed to
make a relatively simple package quite complicated.  However, doc/README seems
to indicate that only the build scripts remain from the GPL-licensed package,
so I suppose all of the actual code is under the 3-clause BSD license included
in COPYING (not doc/COPYING).

Did you intend to build the graphical bits?  The summary seems to indicate so,
but they aren't built.  And the INSTALL file talks of naughty things like
static linking.  Scary.

The way that CFLAGS gets set is a bit weird.  $ARCH_OPT_FLAGS doesn't seem to
be defined on any platform I have access to.  ANd the whole configure thing is
pretty bad; you shouldn't put the buildroot in --prefix or --bindir.  But the
package fails to install if you do that.  And to boot, the resulting binaries
are statically linked.

I know this isn't your fault as you're just working around what seems to be a
really broken upstream build process, but I think this package is busted
enough that I'd like someone else with more experience dealing with really
broken upstreams to comment.

I'll attach a patch that fixes some of the issues, but perhaps a rebase to
0.3.0 is in order just to see if the build process has improved.

Checklist:
* source files match upstream:
   f4a55f18bda2df3ea6b7afb8b755a9f3f95010c7c022c66b4102a030720f9045
   nfs4-acl-tools-0.2.0.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named
X macros should probably be used instead of 
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
? license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
X license text is not included in package.
X latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has valid complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  nfs4-acl-tools-0.2.0-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
   nfs4-acl-tools = 0.2.0-1.fc7
  =
   /bin/sh
   libattr.so.1()(64bit)
   libattr.so.1(ATTR_1.0)(64bit)

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I personally have no NFS4
  install and so no way to test this.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app (but perhaps it should be)


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.