https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657
Bug ID: 1433657 Summary: Review Request: vncpwd - VNC Password Decrypter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rebus@seznam.cz QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org//vncpwd.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org//vncpwd-0.0-1.gitdafebe0.fc24.src.rpm
Description: The vncpwd decrypts the VNC password.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657
--- Comment #1 from Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz --- Scratchbuild: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18463530
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657
Till Maas opensource@till.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |opensource@till.name
--- Comment #2 from Till Maas opensource@till.name --- AFAICS the RPM macro pkgver is defined but not used, please consider removing it. Also the README file in the tarball contains the license information, therefore it might be a good idea to add it as %license, however the actual license is missing in the tarball (see https://github.com/jeroennijhof/vncpwd/issues/1)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657
--- Comment #3 from Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz --- Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org//vncpwd.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org//vncpwd-0.0-2.gitdafebe0.fc24.src.rpm
Thanks for the comments and upstream bug report about the license. I have removed pkgver macro (as it is not needed now) and added README to %license.
Michal Ambroz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Hello,
- Please update to latest git revision: 596854c237e26b3f615d933e8abd040f1ed9b5c9
- Please include a commit date for versioning:
%global commit 596854c237e26b3f615d933e8abd040f1ed9b5c9 %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) %global commitdate 20170607
Name: vncpwd Version: 0.0 Release: 2.%{commitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
And:
* Thu Apr 13 2017 Michal Ambroz <rebus at, seznam.cz> 0.0-2.20170607git596854c
- The license has been added to the repo, use it:
%files %doc README %license LICENSE %{_bindir}/%{name}
- use %make_build instead of just make
- Group: is not used in Fedora. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
- The package doesn't generate debugging symbols, you should add:
%global debug_package %{nil}
- You should patch the FSF address in the README and notify upstream.
vncpwd.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/vncpwd/README
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: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/vncpwd/review- vncpwd/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: 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 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: [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [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]: 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]: 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: vncpwd-0.0-2.20170607git596854c.fc28.x86_64.rpm vncpwd-0.0-2.20170607git596854c.fc28.src.rpm vncpwd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypts -> crypts vncpwd.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/vncpwd vncpwd.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib vncpwd.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/vncpwd/README vncpwd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vncpwd vncpwd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypts -> crypts 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657
--- Comment #5 from Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz --- Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/vncpwd.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/vncpwd-0.0-3.20170607git596854c.fc27.src...
- Please update to latest git revision: 596854c237e26b3f615d933e8abd040f1ed9b5c9
updated
- Please include a commit date for versioning:
added
- use %make_build instead of just make
used
- Group: is not used in Fedora. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
removed
- The package doesn't generate debugging symbols, you should add:
%global debug_package %{nil}
I have rather patched to honor the optflags
- You should patch the FSF address in the README and notify upstream.
Reported upstream, but not patched
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Well except the FSF address issue the package is good.
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: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/vncpwd/review- vncpwd/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 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: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vncpwd- debuginfo , vncpwd-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [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]: 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: vncpwd-0.0-3.20170607git596854c.fc28.x86_64.rpm vncpwd-debuginfo-0.0-3.20170607git596854c.fc28.x86_64.rpm vncpwd-debugsource-0.0-3.20170607git596854c.fc28.x86_64.rpm vncpwd-0.0-3.20170607git596854c.fc28.src.rpm vncpwd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypts -> crypts vncpwd.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib vncpwd.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/vncpwd/README vncpwd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vncpwd vncpwd-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation vncpwd-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/vncpwd-0.0-3.20170607git596854c.fc28.x86_64/vncpwd.c vncpwd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypts -> crypts 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vncpwd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vncpwd-0.0-3.20170607git596854c.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-391af85d0a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vncpwd-0.0-3.20170607git596854c.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-bbbd526e2e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vncpwd-0.0-3.20170607git596854c.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-2018-391af85d0a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vncpwd-0.0-3.20170607git596854c.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-bbbd526e2e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2018-02-28 12:10:02
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vncpwd-0.0-3.20170607git596854c.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=1433657
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vncpwd-0.0-3.20170607git596854c.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com