[Bug 1617920] New: Review Request: kcov - Code coverage tool without special compilation options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617920
Bug ID: 1617920 Summary: Review Request: kcov - Code coverage tool without special compilation options Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dridi.boukelmoune@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://dridi.fedorapeople.org/review/kcov.spec SRPM URL: https://dridi.fedorapeople.org/review/kcov-35-1.fc29.src.rpm
Description: Kcov is a code coverage tester for compiled programs, Python scripts and shell scripts. It allows collecting code coverage information from executables without special command-line arguments, and continuously produces output from long-running applications.
Fedora Account System Username: dridi
This submission supersedes bug 1480752 as I took too long to request the repository and branches creation. It is otherwise the same package submission rebased to the latest release.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617920
Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmoune@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |kcov
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617920
--- Comment #1 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmoune@gmail.com --- I forgot the scratch builds:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29103982 (rawhide) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29104009 (f28)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617920
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Add a comment explaining the license breakdown
Package approved.
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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 213 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/kcov/review-kcov/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: 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. [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. [-]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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 0 bytes in 0 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in kcov- debuginfo , kcov-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: kcov-35-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm kcov-debuginfo-35-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm kcov-debugsource-35-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm kcov-35-1.fc29.src.rpm kcov.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kcov-system-daemon 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617920
--- Comment #3 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmoune@gmail.com ---
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec.
For the record, the licenses breakdown will look like this:
# Licenses of kcov itself and its bundled js libraries License: GPLv2 and BSD and MIT
[?]: Package functions as described.
I have it installed on my x86_64 laptop and I can confirm at least for that architecture that it works just fine.
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617920
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kcov
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617920
Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmoune@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2018-08-16 15:54:21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617920
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- kcov-35-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b19a317636
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617920
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- kcov-35-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-b19a317636
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617920
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- kcov-35-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com