https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329598
Bug ID: 2329598 Summary: Review Request: ttyplot - realtime plotting utility for the terminal Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW 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 Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/ttyplot-1.7.0-1/ttyplot.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/ttyplot-1.7.0-1/ttyplot-1.7.0-1.fc41.sr... koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126389810
Description: ttyplot is real-time plotting utility for text mode consoles and terminals, which takes data input from stdin / pipe.
FAS username: suve
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329598
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/tenox7/t | |typlot/ Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8329159 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329598
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329598
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/ttyplot/2329598-ttyplot/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. [-]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 9035 bytes in 1 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. [-]: 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. [!]: %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/tenox7/ttyplot/archive/refs/tags/1.7.0/ttyplot-1.7.0.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f16ca828bf73f56c05ed4e1797a23861aa7cf3a98fe3fcc8c992d8646906fe51 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f16ca828bf73f56c05ed4e1797a23861aa7cf3a98fe3fcc8c992d8646906fe51
Requires -------- ttyplot (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncursesw.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ttyplot-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ttyplot-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- ttyplot: ttyplot ttyplot(x86-64)
ttyplot-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) ttyplot-debuginfo ttyplot-debuginfo(x86-64)
ttyplot-debugsource: ttyplot-debugsource ttyplot-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2329598 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Python, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, Java, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) There is a stress test. If it is to complicated to run, can a smoke check be run? For example ttyplot --help b) Above is not a must, but would be nice to add before import. Approved. c) Review of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329823 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329598
--- Comment #3 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl ---
There is a stress test. If it is to complicated to run, can a smoke check be run? For example ttyplot --help
The stress test is just a data generator for ttyplot; it generates an endless stream of data to be passed to the program. I could patch the stress test to terminate after some time, but then ttyplot itself does not terminate when the data stream ends. That could, of course, also be patched in, but it would either need to be hidden behind a new command-line option, or we could build the program twice - i.e. have a "normal" build and a "test" build.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329598
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ttyplot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329598
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-71f6c49916 (ttyplot-1.7.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-71f6c49916
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329598
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-e27584d563 (ttyplot-1.7.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e27584d563
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329598
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-e27584d563 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-e27584d563 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e27584d563
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=2329598
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-71f6c49916 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-71f6c49916 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-71f6c49916
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=2329598
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-12-11 02:25:09
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-e27584d563 (ttyplot-1.7.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329598
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-71f6c49916 (ttyplot-1.7.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com