[Bug 2066206] New: Review Request: diskscan - Scan disk for bad or near failure sectors, performs disk diagnostics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066206
Bug ID: 2066206 Summary: Review Request: diskscan - Scan disk for bad or near failure sectors, performs disk diagnostics Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dominik@greysector.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/diskscan/diskscan.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/diskscan/diskscan-0.20-1.fc35.src.rp... Description: DiskScan is a Unix/Linux tool to scan a block device and check if there are unreadable sectors, in addition it uses read latency times as an assessment for a near failure as sectors that are problematic to read usually entail many retries. This can be used to assess the state of the disk and maybe decide on a replacement in advance to its imminent failure. The disk self test may or may not pick up on such clues depending on the disk vendor decision making logic.
Fedora Account System Username: rathann
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066206
Garry T. Williams gtwilliams@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |gtwilliams@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Garry T. Williams gtwilliams@gmail.com --- There are several files that specify licenses other than GPLv3. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/Li... Looks good, otherwise.
*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 --------------------------------- diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/LICENSE
*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0 --------------------------------------- diskscan-0.20/hdrhistogram/COPYING.txt
*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later ------------------------------------------------------- diskscan-0.20/README.md ... Apache License 2.0 ------------------ diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/include/ata.h diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/include/parse_extended_inquiry.h diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/include/parse_log_sense.h diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/include/parse_mode_sense.h diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/include/parse_read_defect_data.h diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/include/parse_receive_diagnostics.h diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/include/scsicmd.h diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/include/scsicmd_utils.h diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/include/sense_key_list.h diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/src/ata.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/src/cdb.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/src/parse_inquiry.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/src/parse_read_cap.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/test/ata_check_power_mode.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/test/ata_identify.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/test/ata_smart_read_data.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/test/ata_smart_return_status.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/test/collect_raw_data.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/test/main.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/test/scsi_inquiry.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/test/scsi_log_sense.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/test/scsi_mode_sense.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/test/scsi_read_capacity_10.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/test/scsi_read_capacity_16.c diskscan-0.20/libscsicmd/test/scsi_receive_diagnostics.c
BSD 3-Clause License -------------------- diskscan-0.20/progressbar/LICENSE ... Public domain BSD 2-Clause License ---------------------------------- diskscan-0.20/hdrhistogram/LICENSE.txt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066206
--- Comment #2 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/diskscan/diskscan.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/diskscan/diskscan-0.20-2.fc35.src.rp...
* Tue Mar 29 2022 Dominik Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net 0.20-2 - add a break-down of all licenses
Thanks, Garry.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066206
Garry T. Williams gtwilliams@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gtwilliams@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Garry T. Williams gtwilliams@gmail.com --- Taking review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066206
Garry T. Williams gtwilliams@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Garry T. Williams gtwilliams@gmail.com --- PACKAGE APPROVED
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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Public domain BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0". 155 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/garry/2066206-diskscan/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. [-]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [-]: %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/baruch/diskscan/archive/0.20/diskscan-0.20.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 86038b3eb45fd4b2485a4ffba1949c68bea66f13a4c991265e3d527f022ed966 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 86038b3eb45fd4b2485a4ffba1949c68bea66f13a4c991265e3d527f022ed966
Requires -------- diskscan (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
diskscan-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
diskscan-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- diskscan: diskscan diskscan(x86-64)
diskscan-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) diskscan-debuginfo diskscan-debuginfo(x86-64)
diskscan-debugsource: diskscan-debugsource diskscan-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2066206 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, Python, fonts, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066206
--- Comment #5 from Mohan Boddu mboddu@bhujji.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/diskscan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066206
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST
--- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- Built in rawhide and branch requests open for f35 and f36. Thanks for the review. Let me know if you have something to review in return.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066206
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-afe332bd79 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-afe332bd79
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066206
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-fce852fa40 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fce852fa40
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066206
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-fce852fa40 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-fce852fa40 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fce852fa40
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=2066206
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-afe332bd79 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-afe332bd79 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-afe332bd79
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=2066206
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-04-21 21:21:49
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-fce852fa40 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066206
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-afe332bd79 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com