https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
Bug ID: 1401013 Summary: Review Request: git-octopus - git commands for continuous delivery Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: andrea@baita.pro QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/master/git-octopu... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/baitaand/git-octopus/fedora-... Description: The continuous merge workflow is meant for continuous integration/delivery and is based on feature branching. git-octopus provides git commands to implement it. Fedora Account System Username: baitaand
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
andrea@baita.pro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
--- Comment #1 from andrea@baita.pro --- This is my first package and I need a sponsor. I builded the rpm with copr : https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/baitaand/git-octopus/build/484097/ The spec file is available on github: https://github.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/blob/master/git-octopus.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
andrea@baita.pro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/lesfuret | |s/git-octopus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
Guido Aulisi guido.aulisi@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |guido.aulisi@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Guido Aulisi guido.aulisi@gmail.com --- This is an unofficial review.
Please always use raw direct URLs for spec and SRPMS files, and the format you used in the first comment.
fedora-review is failing to parse the spec file because it tries to parse the github page (https://github.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/blob/master/git-octopus.spec), instead of the plain txt spec file.
This software requires the shasum command, which is a perl script from perl-Digest-SHA package. IMHO it would be better to use the sha1sum command from coreutils, but this would require an upstream patch.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
--- Comment #3 from Andrea Baita andrea@baita.pro --- Thanks, I added the git hub url only for reference, the direct link is in the first message: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/master/git-octopu...
For the shasum command I think the developers used it because it is available on mac os. We can add a patch if it is necessary.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: git-octopus |Review Request: git-octopus |- git commands for |- Git commands for |continuous delivery |continuous delivery
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- Unfortunately, I can't sponsor you, but spec looks clean and good apart from license, license is LGPLv2+, not LGPLv2.
Also you should add BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/a2x since it's used to build documentation (man pages).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
--- Comment #5 from Andrea Baita andrea@baita.pro --- Thanks for the feedback.
The project use a LGPLv3 license as specified in the project licence file (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lesfurets/git-octopus/master/LICENSE) and the spec file.
I will update the BuildRequires section adding the a2x as you suggested.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
--- Comment #6 from Andrea Baita andrea@baita.pro --- Spec updated with doc generation: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/master/git-octopu...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
--- Comment #7 from Andrea Baita andrea@baita.pro --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/master/git-octopu... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/baitaand/git-octopus/fedora-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
Xavier Bachelot xavier@bachelot.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from Xavier Bachelot xavier@bachelot.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== Issues ===== - Build of the documentation is not using %{?_smp_mflags}. Not a blocker, but please fix before or after importing the srpm.
===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1401013-git-octopus/licensecheck.txt [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 61440 bytes in 3 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]: 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
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: git-octopus-1.4-2.fc25.noarch.rpm git-octopus-1.4-2.fc25.src.rpm git-octopus.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce git-octopus.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-apply-conflict-resolution git-octopus.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- git-octopus.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce git-octopus.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-apply-conflict-resolution 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- git-octopus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /usr/bin/shasum git
Provides -------- git-octopus: git-octopus
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/lesfurets/git-octopus/archive/v1.4/git-octopus-1.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e2800eea829c6fc74da0d3f3fcb3f7d328d1ac8fbb7b2eca8c651c0c903a50c3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e2800eea829c6fc74da0d3f3fcb3f7d328d1ac8fbb7b2eca8c651c0c903a50c3
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1401013 -m fedora-25-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-25-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
Xavier Bachelot xavier@bachelot.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |xavier@bachelot.org Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Xavier Bachelot xavier@bachelot.org --- Hi Andrea,
Package is APPROVED, I'll sponsor you.
Please fix the issue with doc build before or after importing the package, but this is not a blocker.
Regards, Xavier
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/git-octopus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
Xavier Bachelot xavier@bachelot.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2017-06-06 05:16:58
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla