https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123175
Bug ID: 2123175 Summary: Review Request: erlang-rebar3-pc - a port compiler for rebar3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lemenkov@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-rebar3-pc.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-rebar3-pc-1.14.0-1.fc36.src.r... Description: This plugin is intended to replicate the rebar2 support for compiling native code. It is not a drop-in replacement in terms of command-line interface but the exact configuration interface in projects' rebar.configs have been preserved. Fedora Account System Username:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123175
--- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- *** Bug 2123173 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123175
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Koji scratch build in progress:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91478758
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123175
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- FAS name - peter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123175
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I will take this review. Is bug 2121594 okay for you to take, or is it too hairy?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123175
--- Comment #5 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Do you understand the "beam-was-not-recompiled" warnings from rpmlint? I'm not conversant enough with erlang to know what that means.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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", "MIT License". 9 files have unknown license. [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. [x]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- erlang-rebar3-pc.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/pc-1.14.0/ebin/pc.beam b'/builddir/build/BUILD/port_compiler-1.14.0/src/pc.erl' erlang-rebar3-pc.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/pc-1.14.0/ebin/pc_compilation.beam b'/builddir/build/BUILD/port_compiler-1.14.0/src/pc_compilation.erl' erlang-rebar3-pc.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/pc-1.14.0/ebin/pc_port_env.beam b'/builddir/build/BUILD/port_compiler-1.14.0/src/pc_port_env.erl' erlang-rebar3-pc.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/pc-1.14.0/ebin/pc_port_specs.beam b'/builddir/build/BUILD/port_compiler-1.14.0/src/pc_port_specs.erl' erlang-rebar3-pc.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/pc-1.14.0/ebin/pc_prv_clean.beam b'/builddir/build/BUILD/port_compiler-1.14.0/src/pc_prv_clean.erl' erlang-rebar3-pc.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/pc-1.14.0/ebin/pc_prv_compile.beam b'/builddir/build/BUILD/port_compiler-1.14.0/src/pc_prv_compile.erl' erlang-rebar3-pc.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/pc-1.14.0/ebin/pc_util.beam b'/builddir/build/BUILD/port_compiler-1.14.0/src/pc_util.erl'
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- erlang-rebar3-pc.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/pc-1.14.0/ebin/pc.beam b'/builddir/build/BUILD/port_compiler-1.14.0/src/pc.erl' erlang-rebar3-pc.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/pc-1.14.0/ebin/pc_compilation.beam b'/builddir/build/BUILD/port_compiler-1.14.0/src/pc_compilation.erl' erlang-rebar3-pc.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/pc-1.14.0/ebin/pc_port_env.beam b'/builddir/build/BUILD/port_compiler-1.14.0/src/pc_port_env.erl' erlang-rebar3-pc.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/pc-1.14.0/ebin/pc_port_specs.beam b'/builddir/build/BUILD/port_compiler-1.14.0/src/pc_port_specs.erl' erlang-rebar3-pc.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/pc-1.14.0/ebin/pc_prv_clean.beam b'/builddir/build/BUILD/port_compiler-1.14.0/src/pc_prv_clean.erl' erlang-rebar3-pc.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/pc-1.14.0/ebin/pc_prv_compile.beam b'/builddir/build/BUILD/port_compiler-1.14.0/src/pc_prv_compile.erl' erlang-rebar3-pc.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/pc-1.14.0/ebin/pc_util.beam b'/builddir/build/BUILD/port_compiler-1.14.0/src/pc_util.erl'
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/blt/port_compiler/archive/v1.14.0/port_compiler-1.14.0.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bb8c8f93900fac6fbcac403b29dc3c7df8e96cf06cdda0189597b40f05728e7b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bb8c8f93900fac6fbcac403b29dc3c7df8e96cf06cdda0189597b40f05728e7b
Requires -------- erlang-rebar3-pc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): erlang-erts(x86-64) erlang-kernel(x86-64) erlang-providers erlang-rebar3 erlang-stdlib(x86-64)
Provides -------- erlang-rebar3-pc: erlang-rebar3-pc
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2123175 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Ruby, Perl, C/C++, R, SugarActivity, Python, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123175
--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #5)
Do you understand the "beam-was-not-recompiled" warnings from rpmlint? I'm not conversant enough with erlang to know what that means.
Yeah that's a known issue. I am working on a fix for that rpmlint check.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123175
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Okay, in that case this package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123175
--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/erlang-rebar3-pc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123175
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-02f9caceb3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-02f9caceb3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123175
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-55865abd9a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-55865abd9a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123175
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-02f9caceb3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-02f9caceb3 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-02f9caceb3
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=2123175
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-55865abd9a 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-55865abd9a *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-55865abd9a
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=2123175
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-09-14 00:20:18
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-02f9caceb3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123175
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-55865abd9a 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