https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
Bug ID: 1601224 Summary: Review Request: aha - convert terminal output to HTML Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fedora@svgames.pl QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/aha-0.4.10.6-1.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/aha-0.4.10.6-1.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28303585
Description: aha parses output from other programs, recognizes ANSI terminal escape sequences and produces an HTML rendition of the original text.
Fedora Account System Username: suve
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 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 =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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: "*No copyright* MPL (v1.1)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/aha/review-aha/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: 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. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: 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: aha-0.4.10.6-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm aha-debuginfo-0.4.10.6-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm aha-debugsource-0.4.10.6-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm aha-0.4.10.6-1.fc29.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): I don't know how this got approved given that the summary starts with lower-case, CFLAGS and LDFLAGS are ignored.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- P.S. use %set_build_flags in %build to get proper CFLAGS/LDFLAGS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: aha - |Review Request: aha - |convert terminal output to |Convert terminal output to |HTML |HTML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #4 from Artur Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl --- Thanks for the help, Igor.
spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/aha-0.4.10.6-2.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/aha-0.4.10.6-2.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28399957
I will go and check whether any of my already-accepted packages has the same build-flags issue.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #5 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- Seems that it does it correctly.
cc -std=c99 -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld aha.c -o aha
Feel free to open new scm request.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #6 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- Also use %make_build instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- aha-0.4.10.6-2.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b88af8e792
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- aha-0.4.10.6-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5332ede697
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- aha-0.4.10.6-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-32a11c9d3c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- aha-0.4.10.6-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-c6bff39762
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- aha-0.4.10.6-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-c6bff39762
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- aha-0.4.10.6-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5332ede697
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- aha-0.4.10.6-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-32a11c9d3c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- aha-0.4.10.6-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b88af8e792
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- aha-0.4.10.6-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2018-07-28 22:18:50
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- aha-0.4.10.6-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- aha-0.4.10.6-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601224
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- aha-0.4.10.6-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com