[Bug 1315912] New: Review Request: diffoscope - In-depth comparison of files, archives, and directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912
Bug ID: 1315912 Summary: Review Request: diffoscope - In-depth comparison of files, archives, and directories Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zbyszek@in.waw.pl QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: dhiru@openwall.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Depends On: 1315910
Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/diffoscope.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/diffoscope-48-1.fc25.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: zbyszek Description: diffoscope will try to get to the bottom of what makes files or directories different. It will recursively unpack archives of many kinds and transform various binary formats into more human readable form to compare them. It can compare two tarballs, ISO images, or PDF just as easily. The differences can be shown in a text or HTML report.
diffoscope is developed as part of the "reproducible builds" Debian project and was formerly known as "debbindiff".
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315910 [Bug 1315910] Review Request: python-libarchive-c - Python interface to libarchive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912
Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jonathan.underwood@gmail.co | |m
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com --- You could replace many instances of "diffoscope" with %{name} in the spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- It seems I didn't update to the latest version, I need to do that first.
You could replace many instances of "diffoscope" with %{name} in the spec file.
I think that reduces readability... and also copy&paste-ability.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Improved version: - update to 51 - only one test disabled - man page
Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/diffoscope.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/diffoscope-51-1.fc25.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |anto.trande@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1316189
--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- More functionality with tlsh (#1316189). Works fine without, so I'm not adding a dependency yet.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316189 [Bug 1316189] Review Request: tlsh - Fuzzy text matching library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912 Bug 1315912 depends on bug 1316189, which changed state.
Bug 1316189 Summary: Review Request: tlsh - Fuzzy text matching library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316189
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912
--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/diffoscope.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/diffoscope-51-2.fc25.src.rpm
Now with tlsh.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912
--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Check did not completechecksum differs and there are problems running diff. Please verify manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- Script installs python code released under GPLv3+ :
GPL (v3 or later) ----------------- diffoscope-51/bin/diffoscope diffoscope-51/diffoscope/__init__.py diffoscope-51/diffoscope/__main__.py diffoscope-51/diffoscope/comparators/__init__.py diffoscope-51/diffoscope/comparators/*.py
License tag should be modified to "BSD and GPLv3+"
- Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
- Please, check
Source checksums ---------------- http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/diffoscope/diffoscope_51.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 48aecda84fd621649dd457b6ebe574ee2cf08a6eb475bdbc16284de195ea90dd
===== 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. [!]: 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)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1315912-diffoscope/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 1 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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]: 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
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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. [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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: diffoscope-51-1.fc25.noarch.rpm diffoscope-51-1.fc25.src.rpm diffoscope.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debbindiff -> diffidence diffoscope.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debbindiff -> diffidence diffoscope.src: W: invalid-url Source0: diffoscope-51.tar.xz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/sagitter/1315912-diffoscope/srpm/diffoscope.spec 2016-03-10 19:15:46.706356273 +0100 +++ /home/sagitter/1315912-diffoscope/srpm-unpacked/diffoscope.spec 2016-03-09 14:10:10.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,9 +1,14 @@ Name: diffoscope Version: 51 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: In-depth comparison of files, archives, and directories License: BSD URL: https://diffoscope.org/ -Source0: http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/diffoscope/diffoscope_%%7Bversion%7... +#Source0: https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/diffoscope/diffoscope-%%%7Bversion... + +# Latest versions missing from pypi +# git clone https://anonscm.debian.org/git/reproducible/diffoscope.git +# git archive --prefix diffoscope-51/ 51 | xz -9 > ../diffoscope-51.tar.xz +Source0: diffoscope-%{version}.tar.xz
BuildArch: noarch @@ -18,5 +23,4 @@ BuildRequires: /usr/bin/rst2man Requires: python3-magic -Requires: python3-tlsh
%description @@ -60,7 +64,4 @@
%changelog -* Thu Mar 10 2016 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@bupkis - 51-2 -- Require python3-tlsh - * Wed Mar 9 2016 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@bupkis - 51-1 - Update to v 51
Requires -------- diffoscope (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-magic
Provides -------- diffoscope: diffoscope
Source checksums ---------------- http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/diffoscope/diffoscope_51.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 48aecda84fd621649dd457b6ebe574ee2cf08a6eb475bdbc16284de195ea90dd
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1315912 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912
--- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- The license should just be GPLv3+, my bad. That's what the file headers and setup.py specifies.
Sorry for the mix-up with srpm and the spec file.
Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/diffoscope.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/diffoscope-51-3.fc25.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13300829 koji with the failing test enabled: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13300888
(It builds fine in mock, I hope it'll work in koji too.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@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)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1315912-diffoscope/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 1 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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. [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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [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: diffoscope-51-3.fc25.noarch.rpm diffoscope-51-3.fc25.src.rpm diffoscope.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debbindiff -> diffidence diffoscope.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debbindiff -> diffidence 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ----------------------------
Requires -------- diffoscope (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-magic python3-tlsh
Provides -------- diffoscope: diffoscope
Source checksums ---------------- http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/diffoscope/diffoscope_51.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 48aecda84fd621649dd457b6ebe574ee2cf08a6eb475bdbc16284de195ea90dd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 48aecda84fd621649dd457b6ebe574ee2cf08a6eb475bdbc16284de195ea90dd
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1315912 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912
--- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/diffoscope
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |diffoscope-51-3.fc22 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2016-03-31 17:45:48
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912 Bug 1315912 depends on bug 1315910, which changed state.
Bug 1315910 Summary: Review Request: python-libarchive-c - Python interface to libarchive https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315910
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla