https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975701
Bug ID: 975701 Summary: Review Request: pcapfix - A tool for repairing corrupted pcap files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: cickumqt@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/pcapfix.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/pcapfix-0.7.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: pcapfix is a repair tool for corrupted pcap files. It checks for an intact pcap global header and repairs it if there are any corrupted bytes. If one is not present, one is created and added to the beginning of the file. It then tries to find pcap packet headers, and checks and repairs them. Fedora Account System Username: cicku
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975701
Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |richmattes@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |richmattes@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com --- I'll take this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975701
--- Comment #2 from Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com --- Here's the fedora-review generated review template, which I completed manually for outstanding issues.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: %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 [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the 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". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rich/tmp/975701-pcapfix/licensecheck.txt
pcapfix.c indicates that the license of the package is GPLv3, but the spec file says GPLv3+. Please remove the + from the spec file.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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).
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make.
fedora-review complains about this, but there is only one source file so parallel make doesn't really matter. I wouldn't worry about it unless an update adds more source files.
[x]: 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. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: pcapfix-0.7.3-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm pcapfix.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pcap -> pap, cap, p cap pcapfix.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcap -> pap, cap, p cap 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint pcapfix pcapfix.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pcap -> pap, cap, p cap pcapfix.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcap -> pap, cap, p cap 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- pcapfix (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- pcapfix: pcapfix pcapfix(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- http://f00l.de/pcapfix/pcapfix-0.7.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d73661e7d1bd6fc85fb63d7be06c54554aec3fa7b0f26172ec7d010d62d6bad2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d73661e7d1bd6fc85fb63d7be06c54554aec3fa7b0f26172ec7d010d62d6bad2
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 975701
This spec is very clean. The rpmlint warnings are OK, since pcap is the file format this program is operating over. The only issue here is the license in the spec file is incorrect. Once you upload a new spec/srpm with GPLv3 instead of GPLv3+, I'll approve this package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975701
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- FYI I've add smp flag, thanks!
License is fixed with GPLv3.
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/pcapfix.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/pcapfix-0.7.3-2.fc20.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975701
Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com --- Looks good, this package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975701
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pcapfix Short Description: A tool for repairing corrupted pcap files Owners: cicku Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975701
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975701
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975701
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975701
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pcapfix-0.7.3-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pcapfix-0.7.3-2.fc19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975701
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pcapfix-0.7.3-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pcapfix-0.7.3-2.fc18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975701
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pcapfix-0.7.3-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975701
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |pcapfix-0.7.3-2.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-08-01 23:21:45
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pcapfix-0.7.3-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975701
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|pcapfix-0.7.3-2.fc19 |pcapfix-0.7.3-2.fc18
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- pcapfix-0.7.3-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla