https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
Bug ID: 2072634 Summary: Review Request: zcfan - Zero-configuration fan daemon for ThinkPads Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcavalca@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/zcfan/zcfan.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/zcfan/zcfan-1.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm
Description: zcfan is a zero-configuration fan control daemon for ThinkPads.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michel@michel-slm.name Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michel@michel-slm.name Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Taking this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #1)
Taking this review.
Or not!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Looks good, APPROVED
one question though - does it make sense to make this ExclusiveArch: x86_64?
- Until the ThinkPad x13s comes out, we don't even know if this would work on aarch64, and there's no thinkpad with other arches - %{ix86} doesn't make sense either as ... multilib only covers libraries. Might be OK to keep it as a sanity check that this compiles on 32-bit though
The policy is a bit vague on this, as it talks mostly about ExcludeArch, but we do have things (like Rust) that use ExclusiveArch because upstream really only supports certain platforms, and this seems like one of those
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present.
===== 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]: 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 License", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/dcavalca/2072634-zcfan/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/systemd [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [?]: 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 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]: 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in zcfan [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]: 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/cdown/zcfan/archive/1.1.0/zcfan-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 691526fb10870991a890c5ce8a5495e8df9ffd0ee3ebef701a42aecc6862e900 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 691526fb10870991a890c5ce8a5495e8df9ffd0ee3ebef701a42aecc6862e900
Requires -------- zcfan (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
zcfan-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
zcfan-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- zcfan: zcfan zcfan(x86-64)
zcfan-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) zcfan-debuginfo zcfan-debuginfo(x86-64)
zcfan-debugsource: zcfan-debugsource zcfan-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2072634 -m fedora-35-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-35-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, Python, fonts, Perl, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Thanks! Yeah, I have no objection to making this exclusive, but I wasn't sure about the policy either.
$ fedpkg request-repo zcfan 2072634 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/43535
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-59986f657f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-59986f657f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-04-06 20:43:20
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-59986f657f 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=2072634
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-345583715d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-345583715d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-b8e4ffcf63 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b8e4ffcf63
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-0108a68e3e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0108a68e3e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-266518b11d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-266518b11d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-3430917160 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-3430917160
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-b8e4ffcf63 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=2072634
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-0108a68e3e 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-2022-0108a68e3e *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0108a68e3e
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=2072634
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-266518b11d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-266518b11d
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=2072634
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-3430917160 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-3430917160
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=2072634
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-345583715d 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-2022-345583715d *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-345583715d
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=2072634
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-266518b11d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-0108a68e3e has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-3430917160 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072634
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-345583715d 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