https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
Bug ID: 2267901 Summary: Review Request: hardinfo2 - System Information and Benchmark for Linux Systems Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: topazus@outlook.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/hardinfo2.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/hardinfo2-2.0.12-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: System Information and Benchmark for Linux Systems Fedora Account System Username: topazus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/hardinfo | |2/hardinfo2
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7107018 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
Beck Liu shattuckite@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |shattuckite@outlook.com Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |shattuckite@outlook.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
hwspeedy hardinfo2@bigbear.dk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hardinfo2@bigbear.dk
--- Comment #2 from hwspeedy hardinfo2@bigbear.dk --- *** Bug 2267587 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
--- Comment #3 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Fix build on f39
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/hardinfo2.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/hardinfo2-2.0.12-1.fc41.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2020267 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2020267&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7107018 to 7108195
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7108195 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
--- Comment #6 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/hardinfo2.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/hardinfo2-2.0.12-1.fc41.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
--- Comment #7 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/hardinfo2.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/hardinfo2-2.0.12-1.fc41.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7109854 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2020338 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2020338&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7109851 to 7109854
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7109851 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
--- Comment #11 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/hardinfo2.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/hardinfo2-2.0.12.62466d1-1.fc41.src.rp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
--- Comment #12 from Beck Liu shattuckite@outlook.com --- + package name is OK + license is acceptable for Fedora + builds and installs OK + BR/P/R look correct + no scriptlets needed or present + rpmlint finds no big issue
So I gave my approval.
--------------
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 5375 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4198400 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: hardinfo2-2.0.12^20240309git62466d1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm hardinfo2-debuginfo-2.0.12^20240309git62466d1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm hardinfo2-debugsource-2.0.12^20240309git62466d1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm hardinfo2-2.0.12^20240309git62466d1-1.fc39.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpry133x5z')] checks: 32, packages: 4
hardinfo2.spec:46: W: macro-in-comment %{url} hardinfo2.spec:46: W: macro-in-comment %{version} hardinfo2.spec:46: W: macro-in-comment %{version} hardinfo2.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps/hardinfo2.png /usr/share/hardinfo2/pixmaps/hardinfo2.png 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 34 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: hardinfo2-debuginfo-2.0.12^20240309git62466d1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp8asj1qb1')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 18 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hardinfo2-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hardinfo2-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hardinfo2". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 3
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- hardinfo2: /usr/lib64/hardinfo2/modules/benchmark.so hardinfo2: /usr/lib64/hardinfo2/modules/computer.so hardinfo2: /usr/lib64/hardinfo2/modules/devices.so hardinfo2: /usr/lib64/hardinfo2/modules/network.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hardinfo2/hardinfo2/archive/62466d1fb8875139b40dc05194e0b... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cd9a5f40aa9a2ae056285c723fed18b546789cff2a1daf213d1d42c03f84af14 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cd9a5f40aa9a2ae056285c723fed18b546789cff2a1daf213d1d42c03f84af14
Requires -------- hardinfo2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0(libjson-glib-1.0.so.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
hardinfo2-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
hardinfo2-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- hardinfo2: application() application(hardinfo2.desktop) hardinfo2 hardinfo2(x86-64)
hardinfo2-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) hardinfo2-debuginfo hardinfo2-debuginfo(x86-64)
hardinfo2-debugsource: hardinfo2-debugsource hardinfo2-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name hardinfo2 --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-39-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, R, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267901
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hardinfo2
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org