https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586119
Bug ID: 1586119 Summary: Review Request: peripety - storage event daemon Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fge@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://cathay4t.fedorapeople.org/peripety/0.1.2/peripety-0.1.2-1.fc29.src.r... SRPM URL: https://cathay4t.fedorapeople.org/peripety/0.1.2/peripety.spec Description: Peripety is designed to parse system storage logging into structured storage event helping user investigate storage issues. For detail, please refer to https://github.com/cathay4t/peripety Fedora Account System Username: cathay4t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586119
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Not used in Fedora:
Group:
- Use the systemd scriplets, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging:ScriptletSn...
%{?systemd_requires} BuildRequires: systemd
And:
%post %systemd_post peripetyd.service
%preun %systemd_preun peripetyd.service
%postun %systemd_postun_with_restart peripetyd.service
- The config file should be marked as noreplace:
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/peripetyd.conf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586119
--- Comment #2 from Gris Ge fge@redhat.com --- Robert-André Mauchin,
Updated. And also included the license file by %license macro.
Thanks for the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586119
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - You can simplify Source0:
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Will finish the review when Rust is fixed on Rawhide (currently broken).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586119
--- Comment #4 from Gris Ge fge@redhat.com --- Updated. Thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586119
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/peripety/review-peripety/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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [-]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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 ------- Checking: peripety-0.1.2-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm peripety-debuginfo-0.1.2-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm peripety-debugsource-0.1.2-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm peripety-0.1.2-1.fc29.src.rpm peripety.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary peripetyd 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586119
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/peripety
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586119
Gris Ge fge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |peripety-0.1.2-1.fc29 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2018-06-06 14:02:57
--- Comment #7 from Gris Ge fge@redhat.com --- peripety-0.1.2-1.fc29 is in rawhide now.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com