[Bug 968339] Review Request: ps_mem - Memory profiling tool

Thu May 30 19:37:36 UTC 2013

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968339

Greg Bailey <gbailey at lxpro.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #9 from Greg Bailey <gbailey at lxpro.com> ---
Looks good.  The only thing I marked with '!' (under "SHOULD") is:

[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.

In this case, I think it's acceptable because ps_mem is really part of a larger
collection that is outside the scope of this particular package.  The script
clearly indicates LGPLv2, and the license text file is pulled directly from the
FSF.

Approved.

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

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the 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". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/gbailey/968339-ps_mem/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ps_mem-3.1-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
ps_mem.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ps -> PS, pa, pd
ps_mem.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mem -> men, me, mm
ps_mem.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ps_mem
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint ps_mem
ps_mem.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ps -> PS, pa, pd
ps_mem.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mem -> men, me, mm
ps_mem.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ps_mem
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires
--------
ps_mem (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/env
    python2

Provides
--------
ps_mem:
    ps_mem

Source checksums
----------------
https://raw.github.com/pixelb/scripts/961ff24c805a474080520403409872b04e18f4d9/scripts/ps_mem.py
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
4856fbd39b9f2f7d2532e467b2f822c164bd2b0cf2a6275c46d0a46ce38405d6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
4856fbd39b9f2f7d2532e467b2f822c164bd2b0cf2a6275c46d0a46ce38405d6
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
dc626520dcd53a22f727af3ee42c770e56c97a64fe3adb063799d8ab032fe551
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
dc626520dcd53a22f727af3ee42c770e56c97a64fe3adb063799d8ab032fe551

Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 968339

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=by3W2y0BwQ&a=cc_unsubscribe