https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
Bug ID: 2123950 Summary: Review Request: clibs-list - C doubly linked list implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: code@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/clibs-list.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/ Description: C doubly linked list implementation Fedora Account System Username: music
Koji scratch builds:
F38: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91570212 F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91570213 F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91570214 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91570215
This is for unbundling from oidc-agent (bug 1997994).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1997994
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997994 [Bug 1997994] Review Request: oidc-agent - CLI tools for managing OIDC access tokens
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- spec: https://music.fedorapeople.org/clibs-list.spec srpm: https://music.fedorapeople.org/clibs-list-0.2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thanks for the typo fix!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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. [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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/clibs-list/2123950-clibs- list/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== 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. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/clibs/list/archive/0.2.0/list-0.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a4957cb2d4555dd1eba784abbfa313a86ab80a498013b37f4f0e62432708208d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a4957cb2d4555dd1eba784abbfa313a86ab80a498013b37f4f0e62432708208d
Requires -------- clibs-list (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
clibs-list-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): clibs-list(x86-64) libclibs_list.so.0.2.0()(64bit)
clibs-list-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
clibs-list-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- clibs-list: clibs-list clibs-list(x86-64) libclibs_list.so.0.2.0()(64bit)
clibs-list-devel: clibs-list-devel clibs-list-devel(x86-64)
clibs-list-debuginfo: clibs-list-debuginfo clibs-list-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libclibs_list.so.0.2.0-0.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
clibs-list-debugsource: clibs-list-debugsource clibs-list-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2123950 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, PHP, R, Python, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
$ rpmlint clibs-list-0.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm =========================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
============ 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ============
$ rpmlint clibs-list-debuginfo-0.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm =========================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
============ 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ============
$ rpmlint clibs-list-debugsource-0.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm =========================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
============ 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ============
$ rpmlint clibs-list-devel-0.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm =========================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
============ 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ============
$ rpmlint clibs-list-0.2.0-1.fc38.src.rpm =========================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
============ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s ============
$ rpmlint clibs-list-0.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm =========================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
clibs-list.x86_64: W: no-documentation ============ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.3 s ============
$ rpmlint clibs-list-devel-0.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm =========================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
============ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ============
Comments: a) Naming might require changes in future if upstream decides to take a different direction. As there is one dependency at present, a future rename seems manageable.
Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thank you for the review!
Upstream seems to have reached consensus on my PR, and it has one approving review, so I expect it will eventually be merged without further changes.
Repository requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47316
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/clibs-list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-8b19cb4d6b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8b19cb4d6b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-09-24 12:57:23
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-8b19cb4d6b has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a798f73db5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a798f73db5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-bfea8cc8f6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bfea8cc8f6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-eddf2cac76 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eddf2cac76
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-bfea8cc8f6 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-bfea8cc8f6 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bfea8cc8f6
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7155b91ceb has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7155b91ceb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-eddf2cac76 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-eddf2cac76 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eddf2cac76
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-eaa5bc4285 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-eaa5bc4285
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a798f73db5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-a798f73db5 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a798f73db5
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-eaa5bc4285 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-eaa5bc4285
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7155b91ceb has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7155b91ceb
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-eddf2cac76 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-bfea8cc8f6 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-eaa5bc4285 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7155b91ceb has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123950
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a798f73db5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com