[Bug 1780551] New: Review Request: srmio - Schoberer Radmesstechnik (SRM) PowerControl access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780551
Bug ID: 1780551 Summary: Review Request: srmio - Schoberer Radmesstechnik (SRM) PowerControl access Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vascom2@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/RussianFedora/srmio/master/srmio.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8757/39448757/srmio-0.1.1.1-1...
Description: App to access the most important functions of a Schoberer Radmesstechnik (SRM) PowerControl V, VI and 7. You can download the data, mark it deleted, sync the time and set the recording interval.
This lib will be used to empower GoldenCheetah.
My FAS: vascom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780551
Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |vitaly@easycoding.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vitaly@easycoding.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- I will review this package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780551
--- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
%{_mandir}/man1/srmcmd.1.gz
1. %{_mandir}/man1/srmcmd.1*
%{_mandir}/man1/srmdump.1.gz
2. %{_mandir}/man1/srmdump.1*
%{_mandir}/man1/srmsync.1.gz
3. %{_mandir}/man1/srmsync.1*
4. No license and docs in main package. Move them from libs to main package.
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.1 %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.1.*
5. %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.1*
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780551
--- Comment #3 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/RussianFedora/srmio/master/srmio.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8879/39448879/srmio-0.1.1.1-1...
Done.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780551
--- Comment #4 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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]: 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. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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 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: [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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. [x]: %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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: srmio-0.1.1.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm srmio-libs-0.1.1.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm srmio-devel-0.1.1.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm srmio-debuginfo-0.1.1.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm srmio-debugsource-0.1.1.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm srmio-0.1.1.1-1.fc32.src.rpm srmio.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Schoberer -> Soberer srmio.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.1.1.1-1 ['0.1.1.1-1.fc32', '0.1.1.1-1'] srmio.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/srmcmd.1.gz 79: warning: macro `XXXXXX'' not defined srmio-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation srmio.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Schoberer -> Soberer 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: srmio-debuginfo-0.1.1.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm srmio-libs-debuginfo-0.1.1.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- srmio-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zuto.de/project/srmio/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> srmio-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation srmio-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zuto.de/project/srmio/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> srmio.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Schoberer -> Soberer srmio.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.1.1.1-1 ['0.1.1.1-1.fc32', '0.1.1.1-1'] srmio.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zuto.de/project/srmio/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> srmio.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/srmcmd.1.gz 79: warning: macro `XXXXXX'' not defined srmio-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zuto.de/project/srmio/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> srmio-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zuto.de/project/srmio/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> srmio-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zuto.de/project/srmio/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rclasen/srmio/archive/v0.1.1git1.tar.gz#/srmio-0.1.1git1.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8de4681af802316af621e838eec014bbea5dd11546065f5e1ac29ff3bea4de6e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8de4681af802316af621e838eec014bbea5dd11546065f5e1ac29ff3bea4de6e
Requires -------- srmio (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libsrmio.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
srmio-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
srmio-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsrmio.so.1()(64bit) srmio-libs(x86-64)
srmio-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
srmio-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- srmio: srmio srmio(x86-64)
srmio-libs: libsrmio.so.1()(64bit) srmio-libs srmio-libs(x86-64)
srmio-devel: srmio-devel srmio-devel(x86-64)
srmio-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) srmio-debuginfo srmio-debuginfo(x86-64)
srmio-debugsource: srmio-debugsource srmio-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1780551 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }} Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Perl, PHP, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780551
Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.1.1.1-1 ['0.1.1.1-1.fc32', '0.1.1.1-1']
This minor issue can be fixed during import to SCM. Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780551
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/srmio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780551
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2019-12-09 08:19:57
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com