[Bug 530473] Review Request: lessfs - Lessfs is an inline data deduplicating filesystem.

Sun Dec 20 23:59:36 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=530473

--- Comment #19 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan at hubbitus.info>  2009-12-20 18:59:34 EDT ---
I'm very-very apologize for the big delay. Circumstances beyond my control, but
I'm just trying to fight them ...

Long awaited review:
Legend: + - Ok.
- - Error.
+/- - It item acceptable, but I strongly recommend enhancement.
= - N/A.
MUST Items 

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
$ rpmlint *
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[-] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
Patch0 has not any comment.

[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Comment in lessfs.c say:
You can redistribute lessfs and/or modify it under the terms of either (1) the
GNU General Public License; either version 3 of the or (at your option) any
later version as published by the Free Software Foundation.

So, license of package may be GPLv3+. Why you boundary it by GPLv3?

[-] 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.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager
should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake.

Text of license is not includes. Do you try ask maintainer include it?

[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] 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.
$ md5sum lessfs-0.9.4.tar.gz lessfs-0.9.4.tar.gz.downloaded
c4c5dbe234dc026bbba7945dc14f8305  lessfs-0.9.4.tar.gz
c4c5dbe234dc026bbba7945dc14f8305  lessfs-0.9.4.tar.gz.downloaded

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1882307

[+] 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.
[=] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[=] 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.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[=] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[-] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
Do not use direct path /etc/lessfs.cfg, /etc/init.d/lessfs . Macros
like%{_sysconfdir} must be used.

[-] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
lib_qlz.{c,h}:
// QuickLZ data compression library
// Copyright (C) 2006-2007 Lasse Mikkel Reinhold
// lar at quicklz.com
//
// QuickLZ can be used for free under the GPL-1 or GPL-2 license (where
anything.
// released into public must be open source) or under a commercial license if
such.
// has been acquired (see http://www.quicklz.com/order.html). The commercial
license.
// does not cover derived or ported versions created by third parties under
GPL.

lib_BMW.c, lib_sboxes.c, lib_net.{h,c}, lib_tiger.c, listdb.c,  have not any
mention of license and require further clarification.

miniacc.h, portab.h, portab_a.h :
/* ACC --- Automatic Compiler Configuration
 This file is part of the LZO real-time data compression library.

There also issue what it is library and must be packaged separately -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries

[=] 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).
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[=] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[=] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[=] 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.
[=] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[=] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items: 

[=] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[=] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1882307
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Its runs. I do not test anything other.

[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[=] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[=] 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.
[=] 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.

Other issues:
1) It fails build on epel5 -
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1882363 due to old fuse. If
you wish maintain lessfs for epel too it need attention. If it designed only
for Fedora, BuildRoot tag is ambiguous and deprecated.
2) I strongly recommend include AUTHORS (or authors) file into %doc. And may be
README.crypto, README.file_io, README.hashes, README.performance_or_suffer too.

My fault.

P.S. Again sorry for delay.

-- 
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.