https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970649
Bug ID: 1970649 Summary: Review Request: fkill-cli - Fabulously kill processes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: code@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/fkill-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/fkill-cli-6.1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description:
Fabulously kill processes.
Fedora Account System Username: music
This is a command-line tool written with NodeJS. To review it, please make sure you are familiar with the new guidelines for NodeJS introduced in Fedora 34 (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Node.js/).
Koji scratch builds:
F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=69811796 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=69811797
(F33 and EPEL will not be supported.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970649
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 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- LGTM, I'll have to remember the symlink thing
Packqge approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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", "Expat License", "ISC License", "*No copyright* Expat License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Expat License [generated file]", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Apache License 2.0". 5515 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/fkill-cli/review-fkill- cli/licensecheck.txt [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: fkill-cli-6.1.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm fkill-cli-6.1.0-1.fc35.src.rpm fkill-cli.noarch: W: invalid-license 0BSD fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-arrify) fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-execa) fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-get-stream) fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-hosted-git-info) fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-human-signals) fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-map-obj) fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-normalize-package-data) fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-ps-list) fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-semver) fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-type-fest) fkill-cli.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib fkill-cli.src: W: invalid-license 0BSD fkill-cli.src: W: strange-permission check-null-licenses 755 fkill-cli.src: W: no-%build-section fkill-cli.src: W: invalid-url Source3: fkill-cli-6.1.0-nm-dev.tgz fkill-cli.src: W: invalid-url Source2: fkill-cli-6.1.0-nm-prod.tgz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 7 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970649
--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fkill-cli
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970649
--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970649
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-ff490de793 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ff490de793
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970649
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-ff490de793 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-ff490de793 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ff490de793
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=1970649
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-06-23 01:07:18
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-ff490de793 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com