https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
Bug ID: 2036288 Summary: Review Request: netrate - Network interface traffic meter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: radu@rendec.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rrendec/playground/fedora... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rrendec/playground/fedora... Description: netrate is a simple program that displays real-time byte and packet count rate of network interfaces in Linux systems. Fedora Account System Username: rrendec
This is my first official package submission to the Fedora Project, and I am kindly asking for a sponsor. I am the upstream maintainer of the netrate program.
As background information, I would like to add that I wrote my first spec file around 2004 and have maintained and/or contributed to several RPM packages for internal use, so I am not entirely new to RPM packaging. However, this is the first time I am submitting a package upstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@svgames.pl Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl ---
make CFLAGS="-g -O2" %{?_smp_mflags} -C src
This ignores Fedora's CFLAGS. You can use the following, instead:
%set_build_flags %make_build -C src
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
--- Comment #2 from Radu Rendec radu@rendec.net --- Thank you for the feedback. I fixed the spec file according to your suggestions and uploaded a new version.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rrendec/playground/fedora... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rrendec/playground/fedora...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
Jun.Miao jun.miao@intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jun.miao@intel.com
--- Comment #3 from Jun.Miao jun.miao@intel.com ---
Source0: https://github.com/mindbit/%%7Bname%7D/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%...
Please use proper SourceURL form as proscribed in the Guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_ta... In this case, that'd be "%{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
--- Comment #4 from Jun.Miao jun.miao@intel.com --- < BuildRequires: gcc, make In general: BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: make
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
--- Comment #5 from Radu Rendec radu@rendec.net --- Thank you for the feedback. I fixed the spec file according to your suggestions and uploaded a new version.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rrendec/playground/fedora... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rrendec/playground/fedora...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |fedora@svgames.pl Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl --- Package approved. I'd add some blank lines between Tags: to improve readability, but that's a matter of style/preference, so whatever.
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [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. [-]: 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 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]: 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). [x]: 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. [-]: 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. NOTE: Successful scratch build in koji can be found at: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80872375 [-]: %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: 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: netrate-0.1-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm netrate-debuginfo-0.1-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm netrate-debugsource-0.1-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm netrate-0.1-3.fc36.src.rpm netrate.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary netrate 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: netrate-debuginfo-0.1-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mindbit/netrate/archive/v0.1/netrate-0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c70432afdfff2453a72d92ce66dd1c1a1c50511ebe014e10be3853d5a80aeb0f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c70432afdfff2453a72d92ce66dd1c1a1c50511ebe014e10be3853d5a80aeb0f
Requires -------- netrate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
netrate-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
netrate-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- netrate: netrate netrate(x86-64)
netrate-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) netrate-debuginfo netrate-debuginfo(x86-64)
netrate-debugsource: netrate-debugsource netrate-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2036288 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Python, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
--- Comment #7 from Radu Rendec radu@rendec.net --- Thank you so much for reviewing (and approving) the package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(fedora@svgames.pl | |) |
--- Comment #9 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl --- Sponsor privileges are granted to a limited number of packagers, and I am not one of them. You can find the full list of users here: https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/packager/
Also, a random bugzilla ticket isn't really the right place to ask for sponsorship. You should head over to the devel@ mailing list and post a thread there.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(radu@rendec.net)
--- Comment #10 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl --- The package was approved, but no repo has been requested. Are you still interested in getting this into Fedora?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
Radu Rendec radu@rendec.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(radu@rendec.net) |
--- Comment #11 from Radu Rendec radu@rendec.net --- OMG, I now realize it's been almost 6 months since I submitted this and you approved the package. I apologize for being completely silent for so long.
Yes, I am still interested in getting this into Fedora, but it looks like getting sponsored is much harder than I thought.
This page [ https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsore... ] says that "Usually, a sponsor finds you through your sponsorship request in Bugzilla or the packager sponsors pagure instance". I did set this bug to block FE-NEEDSPONSOR, and I was hoping a sponsor would "find me" like the aforementioned page says, but obviously that hasn't happened. Is there anything obvious that I missed or did wrong?
Also, do you have any tips on getting sponsored? I did read the docs, but it looks like there is no clear way of getting there. There are a few different things you *can* do, and then you *may* get attention from a sponsor. The program I created this ticket for (netrate) is my own program, and I want to get it into Fedora. But having to get involved with and maintain a dozen other packages just to be able to do so doesn't seem very reasonable or fair.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
--- Comment #12 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl --- Hoping someone will notice typically takes a long time, so I recomment going to IRC or the mailing list and finding someone willing to sponsor you. Getting sponsored is subject to, well, the sponsor's personal judgement, that's why it's recommended to review some other package review requests, or engage with the community in some other productive way, to convince people you understand the responsibilities involved.
My question is, are you interested in *becoming a packager*, or *getting this particular program packaged*? If it's the latter, then I'd be willing to just take this over and maintain the package myself.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
--- Comment #13 from Radu Rendec radu@rendec.net --- Thank you for the information and advice. Much appreciated!
To answer your question, I'm interested in both, but my priority is getting this particular program packaged. Therefore, I'm going to take you up on the offer to maintain the package. Please let me know if there's anything else you need from my side at this point - and thanks again! Needless to say, I will support you going forward in case there is any issue with the program itself and/or there are bug reports against the package.
The reason why I'm also interested in becoming a packager is because I have a few other programs I would like to get into Fedora, and I thought it would be easier if I became a packager myself. I started with netrate, well, because it's the simplest and I needed to start somewhere anyway. Maybe, if it's not too much to ask, you would be willing to take over the other programs as well. Of course, I would create the .spec files and run basic package tests to ease the burden on you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | CC| |pbrobinson@gmail.com
--- Comment #14 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com --- I'm sponsoring Radu so clearing
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=2036288
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |
--- Comment #15 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl --- There's been no new upstream release, so the package is still latest version. Some minor stuff needs updating:
License: GPLv2
With the ongoing migration to SPDX identifiers, this should be changed to "GPL-2.0-only".
%build %set_build_flags
Starting with Fedora 36, the %set_build_flags is now called automatically. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/36/ChangeSet#%set_build_flags_for_%b...
Also, recently the Packaging Guidelines have been changed to favour using %autorelease and %autochangelog instead of manually editing those, but that's still optional. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_relea... https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
--- Comment #16 from Radu Rendec radu@rendec.net --- Arthur, thanks for reviewing this (again) and for the suggestions and pointers to the documentation. I was about to add a new comment and say that fedpkg request-repo now complains that the review is older than 60 days. However, I was aware of the migration to SPDX identifiers and wanted to fix it first and post a new version of the spec. Then I saw your comment - perfect timing :)
So, I posted a new version of the spec here: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rrendec/staging/fedora-ra...
The COPR build page is here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rrendec/staging/build/5999311/
I did not switch to %autorelease and %autochangelog yet. It would require to set up the dist-git repo locally first. Before I switch, I would like to get this package included and get a feel of how dist-git and the whole process work. As far as I understand, I don't see any reason why switching later should not be possible.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl --- The spec looks ok, the package builds fine in koji. Approved (again).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/netrate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036288
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Fixed In Version| |netrate-0.1-4.fc39 Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-07-05 09:03:25
--- Comment #19 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl --- Closing this since netrate-0.1-4.fc39 has been built and is now available in the repo.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com