[Bug 1927535] New: Review Request: fbrnch - Fedora packager tool to build package branches
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
Bug ID: 1927535 Summary: Review Request: fbrnch - Fedora packager tool to build package branches Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: petersen@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fbrnch/fbrnch.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fbrnch/fbrnch-0.7.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
Description: Fbrnch is a convenient packaging tool for Fedora Packagers, with integration for Bugzilla, Koji, and Bodhi.
Features include: - merging and building a package across release branches - automatic parallel builds of sets of packages in dependency order - creating, updating and listing one's package reviews - requesting repos for new approved packages and branch requests - import srpms from package reviews - progressive copr builds - and many more commands.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61724382
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1924099
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924099 [Bug 1924099] fbrnch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fbrnch/fbrnch.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fbrnch/fbrnch-0.7.1-2.fc33.src.rpm
add license files for internal libs
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61732574
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
Tristan Cacqueray tdecacqu@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tdecacqu@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Tristan Cacqueray tdecacqu@redhat.com --- Note: - I guess the crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl warning is related to ghc-HsOpenSSL, could this be fixed in the future?
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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 30720 bytes in 2 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. [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
Generic: [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: fbrnch-0.7.1-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm fbrnch-0.7.1-2.fc35.src.rpm fbrnch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps, repose fbrnch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US srpms -> PMS fbrnch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US copr -> corp, cope, cop fbrnch.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/fbrnch SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list fbrnch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps, repose fbrnch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US srpms -> PMS fbrnch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US copr -> corp, cope, cop 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb_ro Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb_ro backend. warning: Found bdb_ro Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb_ro backend. fbrnch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps, repose fbrnch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US srpms -> PMS fbrnch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US copr -> corp, cope, cop fbrnch.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/fbrnch SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/fbrnch-0.7.1/fbrnch-0.7.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fc281e0193b1686f395a5432bfbe9a0aa7513d900a99f4eebcbb1fc3521efa15 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fc281e0193b1686f395a5432bfbe9a0aa7513d900a99f4eebcbb1fc3521efa15
Requires -------- fbrnch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bodhi-client copr-cli curl fedpkg git-core koji krb5-workstation libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libffi.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) openssh-clients rpm-build rpmdevtools rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- fbrnch: fbrnch fbrnch(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1927535 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, Python, Ocaml, Perl, R, fonts, Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
Tristan Cacqueray tdecacqu@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tdecacqu@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- (In reply to Tristan Cacqueray from comment #2)
- I guess the crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl warning is related to
ghc-HsOpenSSL, could this be fixed in the future?
Good question: I think you are right.
I was hoping that ghc-HsOpenSSL-x509-system might help with this, currently it seems mainly used via http-client-openssl. So need to think on this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review, Tristan
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32200
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
--- Comment #5 from Mohan Boddu mboddu@bhujji.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fbrnch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED Fixed In Version| |fbrnch-0.7.1-2.fc35
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|fbrnch-0.7.1-2.fc35 |fbrnch-0.7.1-2.fc34
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-febbe71590 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-febbe71590
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-8d71372682 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8d71372682
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-febbe71590 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-febbe71590 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-febbe71590
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=1927535
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-8d71372682 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-8d71372682 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8d71372682
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=1927535
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-93631241b2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-93631241b2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-02-28 17:25:48
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-febbe71590 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-8d71372682 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-93631241b2 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-93631241b2 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-93631241b2
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=1927535
--- Comment #14 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- (In reply to Fedora Update System from comment #13)
FEDORA-2021-93631241b2 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-93631241b2 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-93631241b2
This one is actually due to a fbrnch (edge-case) bug: which I hope to fix in the following release.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com