[Bug 2107911] New: Review Request: titools - Command-line programs for communicating with a TI calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
Bug ID: 2107911 Summary: Review Request: titools - Command-line programs for communicating with a TI calculator 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/titools/titools.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/titools/titools-0.2%5E20160515gcc7d...
Description: This package contains a collection of simple command-line tools for communicating with TI graphing calculators. These tools are based on the excellent libticalcs2 library developed by the TiLP project (or the equivalent libcalcprotocols library.)
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89610177
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |troy@troycurtisjr.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |troy@troycurtisjr.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(davide@cavalca.na | |me) Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== Issues ===== - The license field should be SPDX now
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... -
===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2107911-titools/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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). [x]: Package functions as described. I borrowed my son's TI-84 plus and tested out several of the executables successfully. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. No tests are provided by upstream [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) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3
titools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tidump 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Jonimoose/TITools/archive/cc7dc08d831beaf6c4f865c3acd49a2... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f51b27689b43e32a0181876a4904740b989b9e484c723ddd4219993407554d71 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f51b27689b43e32a0181876a4904740b989b9e484c723ddd4219993407554d71
Requires -------- titools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libticables2.so.8()(64bit) libticalcs2.so.13()(64bit) libticonv.so.9()(64bit) libtifiles2.so.11()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
titools-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
titools-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- titools: titools titools(x86-64)
titools-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) titools-debuginfo titools-debuginfo(x86-64)
titools-debugsource: titools-debugsource titools-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2107911 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, fonts, R, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, Python, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(davide@cavalca.na | |me) |
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Thanks!
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/titools/titools.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/titools/titools-0.2%5E20160515gcc7d...
Changelog: - convert license tag to SPDX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(davide@cavalca.na | |me)
--- Comment #4 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- I get a 404 for the srpm and the linked spec file doesn't have the SPDX change in it. Did the updates get uploaded?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(davide@cavalca.na | |me) |
--- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Ah sorry, looks like the upload failed and I didn't notice. Should be fixed now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- LGTM, 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: "Unknown or generated", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2107911-titools/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. Tested several of the CLI apps with a TI-84 Plus. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Not tests provided by upstream [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: 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: titools-0.2^20160515gcc7dc08-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm titools-debuginfo-0.2^20160515gcc7dc08-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm titools-debugsource-0.2^20160515gcc7dc08-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm titools-0.2^20160515gcc7dc08-1.fc38.src.rpm ==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpuravnhjl')] checks: 31, packages: 4
titools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tidump ===================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ====================================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: titools-debuginfo-0.2^20160515gcc7dc08-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_ftgu6b9')] checks: 31, packages: 1
===================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ====================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3
titools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tidump 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Jonimoose/TITools/archive/cc7dc08d831beaf6c4f865c3acd49a2... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f51b27689b43e32a0181876a4904740b989b9e484c723ddd4219993407554d71 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f51b27689b43e32a0181876a4904740b989b9e484c723ddd4219993407554d71
Requires -------- titools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libticables2.so.8()(64bit) libticalcs2.so.13()(64bit) libticonv.so.9()(64bit) libtifiles2.so.11()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
titools-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
titools-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- titools: titools titools(x86-64)
titools-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) titools-debuginfo titools-debuginfo(x86-64)
titools-debugsource: titools-debugsource titools-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2107911 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Python, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, R, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #7 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Thanks!
$ fedpkg request-repo titools 2107911 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/50058 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo titools f37 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/50059 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo titools f36 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/50060
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/titools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-1d530b2ffa has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-1d530b2ffa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-12-29 18:41:31
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-1d530b2ffa has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-f65deb724d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f65deb724d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-887aec97d5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-887aec97d5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-f65deb724d 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-f65deb724d *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f65deb724d
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=2107911
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-887aec97d5 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-2022-887aec97d5 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-887aec97d5
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=2107911
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-887aec97d5 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107911
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-f65deb724d has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com