[Bug 2259602] New: Review Request: config-kernel - An easy way to edit kernel configuration files and templates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
Bug ID: 2259602 Summary: Review Request: config-kernel - An easy way to edit kernel configuration files and templates Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pj.pandit@yahoo.in QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://pjp.fedorapeople.org/configk.spec SRPM URL: https://pjp.fedorapeople.org/config-kernel-0.2-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: config-krenel tool helps to edit kernel configuration files and templates. User can query, enable, disable or toggle CONFIG options via command line switch or an $EDITOR program, without worrying about option dependencies. Please see -> https://github.com/pjps/config-kernel
Fedora Account System Username: pjp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.in changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dzickus@redhat.com, | |jforbes@redhat.com, | |prarit@redhat.com, | |scweaver@redhat.com, | |williams@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6939363 (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=2259602
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@svgames.pl
--- Comment #2 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl ---
License: GPLv2+
Old Callaway-style tag. New packages should use SPDX identifiers for licences. The SPDX equivalent of this is "GPL-2.0-or-later". https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...
Group: Application
Not used in Fedora. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_section...
%clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Don't do this. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_section...
%global debug_package %{nil}
No. We want debuginfo in Fedora. Patch the Makefile so it respects Fedora's CFLAGS. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_debuginfo_packag...
%files %defattr (-,root,root,-)
These are the defaults. No need to set them. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions
%files #%license add-license-file-here %doc README.md COPYING
The COPYING file should be marked as %license, not %doc. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org ---
Can fedora build macros be used %make instead of make
Adding the install step to the makefile would allow use of %make_install
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Rather than use: cp configk %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/ it may be better to use install -m 0744 configk %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/
Can a smoke check be added? Adding a %check section with configk -h is sufficient, though if further checks are added to the upstream code, this would be great.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- COPYING file does not seem to be in release v0.2 may need to add it manually or use a later commit.
For referencing tags use: https://github.com/OWNER/PROJECT/archive/%%7Bgittag%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversi...
For referencing commits use: https://github.com/OWNER/PROJECT/archive/%%7Bcommit%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bshort...
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
--- Comment #6 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.in --- Cool, I'll do the suggested changes. Thank you for the review comments Artur, Benson.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
--- Comment #7 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.in --- Hello Artur, Benson
Please see: Spec: https://pjp.fedorapeople.org/configk.spec SRPM: https://pjp.fedorapeople.org/config-kernel-0.2-2.fc39.src.rpm
* I've made the suggested changes. Please kindly review it again.
Thank you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6982443 (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=2259602
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/fedora/2259602-configk/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: configk.spec should be config-kernel.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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: [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %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. [ ]: 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. [x]: 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 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]: 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]: 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]: 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 7139 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define shortcommit e2f8b55 [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.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/fedora/2259602-configk/srpm- unpacked/configk.spec See: (this test has no URL) [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: config-kernel-0.2-2.fc40.aarch64.rpm config-kernel-debuginfo-0.2-2.fc40.aarch64.rpm config-kernel-debugsource-0.2-2.fc40.aarch64.rpm config-kernel-0.2-2.fc40.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/tmp5t_nrjxo')] checks: 32, packages: 4
config-kernel.src: W: strange-permission config-kernel-0.2.tar.gz 604 config-kernel.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('krenel', '%description -l en_US krenel -> kernel') config-kernel.src: E: spelling-error ('krenel', '%description -l en_US krenel -> kernel') config-kernel.aarch64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/configk config-kernel.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary configk configk.spec:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 12) config-kernel.src: E: invalid-spec-name config-kernel.aarch64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libfl-devel config-kernel.aarch64: E: devel-dependency bison-devel 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 4 warnings, 18 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: config-kernel-debuginfo-0.2-2.fc40.aarch64.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/tmpokjusc01')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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
config-kernel.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/configk /lib64/libfl.so.2 config-kernel.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('krenel', '%description -l en_US krenel -> kernel') config-kernel.aarch64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/configk config-kernel.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary configk config-kernel.aarch64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libfl-devel config-kernel.aarch64: E: devel-dependency bison-devel 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings, 14 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pjps/config-kernel/archive/e2f8b55/config-kernel-0.2.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 783759630770ff168d8cdafbfa6e48a574de2150772f1c6b71eb3dcb9381e609 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2874e48974da0d4b25013ef223a9106652dcdce6fcabe32905ba844ffd64f173 diff -r also reports differences
Requires -------- config-kernel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bison bison-devel flex gcc libc.so.6()(64bit) libfl-devel libfl.so.2()(64bit) make rtld(GNU_HASH)
config-kernel-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config-kernel-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- config-kernel: config-kernel config-kernel(aarch-64)
config-kernel-debuginfo: config-kernel-debuginfo config-kernel-debuginfo(aarch-64) debuginfo(build-id)
config-kernel-debugsource: config-kernel-debugsource config-kernel-debugsource(aarch-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2259602 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Ocaml, R, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Please use download url for a commit, would expect a url of https://github.com/pjps/config-kernel/archive/7296aaeea1c9179a7ae3e6f8cb51e6... b) Usually needed requires are automtically determined by checking libraries and executables for links to dynamic libraries, so are omitted from the spec file. If some runtime dependency cannot be determined this way, then it is good to explicitly specify it. c) Any reason for not using the default Fedora compiler flags? Modified the spec file to have:
%global commit 7296aaeea1c9179a7ae3e6f8cb51e66077ad0f83 %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
Name: config-kernel Version: 0.2^7296aae Release: 2%{?dist} Summary: An easy way to edit kernel configuration files and templates
License: GPL-2.0-or-later URL: https://github.com/pjps/config-kernel Source: %{URL}/archive/%{commit}/config-kernel-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz
BuildRequires: bison BuildRequires: bison-devel BuildRequires: flex BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: make
%if 0%{?fedora} BuildRequires: libfl-devel %else BuildRequires: libfl-static %endif
%description config-kernel tool helps to edit kernel configuration files and templates. User can query, enable, disable or toggle CONFIG options via command line switch or an $EDITOR program, without worrying about option dependencies.
%prep %autosetup -n %{name}-%{commit}
%build %make_build %{?_smp_mlags}
%install mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_bindir} install -m 0755 configk %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/
%check ./configk -h > /dev/null ./configk -v
and got the following build warnings:
configk.c: In function ‘_init’: configk.c:184:17: warning: format ‘%d’ expects argument of type ‘int’, but argument 3 has type ‘rlim_t’ {aka ‘long unsigned int’} [-Wformat=] 184 | err(-1, "could not set open files limit to: %d", rs.rlim_cur); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ | | | rlim_t {aka long unsigned int} configk.c:168:13: warning: unused variable ‘n’ [-Wunused-variable] 168 | uint8_t n; | ^ configk.c: In function ‘gets_range’: configk.c:399:12: warning: unused variable ‘r’ [-Wunused-variable] 399 | int8_t r = eescans(EXPR_RANGE, rxp, &rng); | ^ configk.c: In function ‘validate_option’: configk.c:427:9: warning: pointer targets in assignment from ‘char *’ to ‘uint8_t *’ {aka ‘unsigned char *’} differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] 427 | val = t->opt_value; | ^ configk.c:432:23: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of ‘atoi’ differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] 432 | long v = atoi(val); | ^~~ | | | uint8_t * {aka unsigned char *} In file included from /usr/include/features.h:503, from /usr/include/bits/libc-header-start.h:33, from /usr/include/stdio.h:28, from configk.c:17: /usr/include/stdlib.h:481:1: note: expected ‘const char *’ but argument is of type ‘uint8_t *’ {aka ‘unsigned char *’} 481 | __NTH (atoi (const char *__nptr)) | ^~~~~ configk.c:440:20: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of ‘strlen’ differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] 440 | l = strlen(val); | ^~~ | | | uint8_t * {aka unsigned char *} In file included from configk.h:19, from configk.c:27: /usr/include/string.h:407:35: note: expected ‘const char *’ but argument is of type ‘uint8_t *’ {aka ‘unsigned char *’} 407 | extern size_t strlen (const char *__s) | ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~ configk.c:441:38: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of ‘strstr’ differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] 441 | if (l > 1 || !strstr("yYnN", val)) | ^~~ | | | uint8_t * {aka unsigned char *} /usr/include/string.h:350:58: note: expected ‘const char *’ but argument is of type ‘uint8_t *’ {aka ‘unsigned char *’} 350 | extern char *strstr (const char *__haystack, const char *__needle) | ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~ configk.c:448:20: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of ‘strlen’ differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] 448 | l = strlen(val); | ^~~ | | | uint8_t * {aka unsigned char *} /usr/include/string.h:407:35: note: expected ‘const char *’ but argument is of type ‘uint8_t *’ {aka ‘unsigned char *’} 407 | extern size_t strlen (const char *__s) | ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~ configk.c:449:40: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of ‘strstr’ differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] 449 | if (l > 1 || !strstr("yYnNmM", val)) | ^~~ | | | uint8_t * {aka unsigned char *} /usr/include/string.h:350:58: note: expected ‘const char *’ but argument is of type ‘uint8_t *’ {aka ‘unsigned char *’} 350 | extern char *strstr (const char *__haystack, const char *__needle) | ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~ configk.c:456:20: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of ‘strlen’ differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] 456 | l = strlen(val); | ^~~ | | | uint8_t * {aka unsigned char *} /usr/include/string.h:407:35: note: expected ‘const char *’ but argument is of type ‘uint8_t *’ {aka ‘unsigned char *’} 407 | extern size_t strlen (const char *__s) | ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~ configk.c:461:23: warning: pointer targets in initialization of ‘char *’ from ‘uint8_t *’ {aka ‘unsigned char *’} differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] 461 | char *c = val + 2; | ^~~ configk.c:468:29: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of ‘strtol’ differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] 468 | long v = strtol(val, NULL, 0); | ^~~ | | | uint8_t * {aka unsigned char *} In file included from configk.h:20: /usr/include/stdlib.h:177:48: note: expected ‘const char * restrict’ but argument is of type ‘uint8_t *’ {aka ‘unsigned char *’} 177 | extern long int strtol (const char *__restrict __nptr, | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~ configk.c:429:5: warning: enumeration value ‘CSTRING’ not handled in switch [-Wswitch] 429 | switch (t->opt_type) | ^~~~~~ configk.c:429:5: warning: enumeration value ‘CVALNOSET’ not handled in switch [-Wswitch] configk.c: In function ‘set_option’: configk.c:501:13: warning: unused variable ‘r’ [-Wunused-variable] 501 | int r = eescans(EXPR_DEFAULT, t->opt_value, &val); | ^ configk.c: In function ‘toggle_configs’: configk.c:537:23: warning: unused variable ‘svp’ [-Wunused-variable] 537 | char *tok, *slt, *svp; | ^~~ configk.c:537:17: warning: unused variable ‘slt’ [-Wunused-variable] 537 | char *tok, *slt, *svp; | ^~~ configk.c:537:11: warning: unused variable ‘tok’ [-Wunused-variable] 537 | char *tok, *slt, *svp; | ^~~ configk.c: In function ‘check_kconfigs’: configk.c:638:13: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of ‘ccparse’ differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] 638 | ccparse(&r); | ^~ | | | int8_t * {aka signed char *} In file included from configk.c:30: cparse.tab.h:107:20: note: expected ‘char *’ but argument is of type ‘int8_t *’ {aka ‘signed char *’} 107 | int ccparse (char *ret); | ~~~~~~^~~ configk.c: In function ‘edit_kconfigs’: configk.c:732:18: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of ‘waitpid’ differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] 732 | waitpid(pid, &st, 0); | ^~~ | | | uint32_t * {aka unsigned int *} In file included from configk.c:24: /usr/include/sys/wait.h:106:45: note: expected ‘int *’ but argument is of type ‘uint32_t *’ {aka ‘unsigned int *’} 106 | extern __pid_t waitpid (__pid_t __pid, int *__stat_loc, int __options); | ~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~ configk.c:752:5: warning: ignoring return value of ‘scanf’ declared with attribute ‘warn_unused_result’ [-Wunused-result] 752 | scanf("%c%*C", &r); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ configk.c: In function ‘gets_range’: configk.c:387:28: warning: ‘;range ’ directive output may be truncated writing 7 bytes into a region of size between 1 and 255 [-Wformat-truncation=] 387 | snprintf(t, l, "%s;range %s", rxp, tok); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ In file included from /usr/include/stdio.h:980: In function ‘snprintf’, inlined from ‘gets_range’ at configk.c:387:13: /usr/include/bits/stdio2.h:54:10: note: ‘__snprintf_chk’ output 8 or more bytes (assuming 262) into a destination of size 255 54 | return __builtin___snprintf_chk (__s, __n, __USE_FORTIFY_LEVEL - 1, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 55 | __glibc_objsize (__s), __fmt, | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 56 | __va_arg_pack ()); | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In function ‘read’, inlined from ‘copy_file.isra.0’ at configk.c:672:9: /usr/include/bits/unistd.h:28:10: warning: ‘*read’ specified size 18446744073709551614 exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Wstringop-overflow=] 28 | return __glibc_fortify (read, __nbytes, sizeof (char), | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /usr/include/bits/unistd-decl.h: In function ‘copy_file.isra.0’: /usr/include/bits/unistd-decl.h:29:16: note: in a call to function ‘*read’ declared with attribute ‘access (write_only, 2, 3)’ 29 | extern ssize_t __REDIRECT_FORTIFY (__read_alias, (int __fd, void *__buf, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In file included from /usr/include/fcntl.h:342, from configk.c:19: In function ‘open’, inlined from ‘copy_file.isra.0’ at configk.c:676:15: /usr/include/bits/fcntl2.h:50:11: error: call to ‘__open_missing_mode’ declared with attribute error: open with O_CREAT or O_TMPFILE in second argument needs 3 arguments 50 | __open_missing_mode (); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ configk.c: In function ‘append’: configk.c:281:9: warning: ‘__strncpy_chk’ specified bound depends on the length of the source argument [-Wstringop-truncation] 281 | strncpy(tmp, dst, strlen(dst)); | ^ configk.c:281:9: note: length computed here 281 | strncpy(tmp, dst, strlen(dst)); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lex.yy.c:4136:16: warning: ‘input’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] 4136 | #else | ^ lex.yy.c:4089:17: warning: ‘yyunput’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] 4089 | | ^ lex.ee.c: In function ‘eelex’: lex.ee.c:2220:19: warning: variable ‘yylloc’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] 2220 | | ^ lex.ee.c: At top level: lex.ee.c:2827:16: warning: ‘input’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] 2827 | #else | ^ eparse.y: In function ‘eeparse’: eparse.y:84:13: warning: suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value [-Wparentheses] 84 | if ($$ = $4) | ^ eparse.y:267:29: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char *’, but argument 4 has type ‘int’ [-Wformat=] 267 | fprintf(stderr, "$(%s) if %s\n", $2, $6); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | | | int clexer.l: In function ‘cclex’: clexer.l:53:1: error: format not a string literal and no format arguments [-Werror=format-security] 53 | <*>. { if (SHOW_CONFIG == postedit) printf(yytext); } | ^ lex.cc.c:1357:19: warning: variable ‘yylloc’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] 1357 | | ^ lex.cc.c: At top level: lex.cc.c:1865:16: warning: ‘input’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] 1865 | #else | ^ lex.cc.c:1822:17: warning: ‘yyunput’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] 1822 | | ^ cc1: some warnings being treated as errors cparse.tab.c: In function ‘ccparse’: cparse.tab.c:1626:27: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of ‘ccerror’ differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] 1626 | yyerror (&yylloc, ret, yymsgp); | ^~~ | | | char * cparse.y:46:25: note: expected ‘int8_t *’ {aka ‘signed char *’} but argument is of type ‘char *’ 46 | void yyerror(YYLTYPE *, int8_t *, char const *); | ^~~~~~~~ cparse.tab.c:1744:21: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of ‘ccerror’ differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] 1744 | yyerror (&yylloc, ret, YY_("memory exhausted")); | ^~~ | | | char * cparse.y:46:25: note: expected ‘int8_t *’ {aka ‘signed char *’} but argument is of type ‘char *’ 46 | void yyerror(YYLTYPE *, int8_t *, char const *); | ^~~~~~~~ make: *** [Makefile:6: configk] Error 1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
--- Comment #10 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.in --- Hello Benson,
* Thank you so much for the detailed review and sharing a revised spec file, really appreciate it. I have used it below.
Please see: Spec: https://pjp.fedorapeople.org/config-kernel.spec SRPM: https://pjp.fedorapeople.org/config-kernel-0.2%5E18b6853-3.fc39.src.rpm
=== $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/config-kernel-0.2^18b6853-3.fc39.x86_64.rpm SRPMS/config-kernel-0.2^18b6853-3.fc39.src.rpm SPECS/config-kernel.spec ============================ 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
config-kernel.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/configk 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ===
* I've fixed all of the compiler warnings/errors. The spec file and package related errors/warnings are also fixed, except the above one, even after trying -fpie/-fPIE/-fPIC options.
* Please kindly review it again. Hope it works.
Thank you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged URL| |https://github.com/pjps/con | |fig-kernel
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6996223 (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=2259602
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #12 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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. [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: [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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2259602-config-kernel/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %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. [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]: 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]: 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 7271 bytes in 1 files. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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: 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: config-kernel-0.2^18b6853-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm config-kernel-debuginfo-0.2^18b6853-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm config-kernel-debugsource-0.2^18b6853-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm config-kernel-0.2^18b6853-3.fc40.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/tmpftd88m4v')] checks: 32, packages: 4
config-kernel.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/configk 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 18 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: config-kernel-debuginfo-0.2^18b6853-3.fc40.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/tmpaszekuic')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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
config-kernel.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/configk /lib64/libfl.so.2 config-kernel.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/configk 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pjps/config-kernel/archive/18b6853077bbbc1f3543377eccdd25... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6fe0e3b4f6eaee429cb0a8ad75806da259380e1bbb8834c388bf50f6fb9c3e8d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6fe0e3b4f6eaee429cb0a8ad75806da259380e1bbb8834c388bf50f6fb9c3e8d
Requires -------- config-kernel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfl.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
config-kernel-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config-kernel-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- config-kernel: config-kernel config-kernel(x86-64)
config-kernel-debuginfo: config-kernel-debuginfo config-kernel-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id)
config-kernel-debugsource: config-kernel-debugsource config-kernel-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2259602 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, Perl, Python, Ocaml, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Thanks for the updates. b) builds on all architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113171799 c) Two warnings config-kernel.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/configk /lib64/libfl.so.2 config-kernel.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/configk
rpmlint -e position-independent-executable-suggested position-independent-executable-suggested: This executable should be position independent (all binaries should). Check that it is built with -fPIE/-fpie in compiler flags and -pie in linker flags.
Maybe try split the makefile to have a linking step rather than building and linking in one command. This would allow -pie to be added to the linker command.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
--- Comment #13 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.in --- Hello Benson,
* Thanks so much for the review, I appreciate it.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #12)
c) Two warnings config-kernel.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/configk /lib64/libfl.so.2
* Hmmn, I did not get this warning.
config-kernel.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/configk
rpmlint -e position-independent-executable-suggested position-independent-executable-suggested: This executable should be position independent (all binaries should). Check that it is built with -fPIE/-fpie in compiler flags and -pie in linker flags.
Maybe try split the makefile to have a linking step rather than building and linking in one command. This would allow -pie to be added to the linker command.
* I tried adding "-pie -PIE -pic -PIC" to $CFLAGS & $LDFLAGS both, it does not help to fix the warning.
=== # dnf info bison-devel Installed Packages Source : bison-3.8.2-5.fc39.src.rpm Repository : @System From repo : fedora Summary : -ly library for development using Bison-generated parsers URL : http://www.gnu.org/software/bison/ Description : The bison-devel package contains the -ly library sometimes used by : programs using Bison-generated parsers. If you are developing programs : using Bison, you might want to link with this library. This library : is not required by all Bison-generated parsers, but may be employed by : simple programs to supply minimal support for the generated parsers. # # rpmls bison-devel -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/liby.a drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/bison-devel -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/bison-devel/COPYING # # file /usr/lib64/liby.a /usr/lib64/liby.a: current ar archive ===
* It looks like '-ly' Bison yacc(1) library is a static object archive, not a shared library. Likely that is causing generation of a non-position-independent binary. Not sure how to fix it.
Thank you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
--- Comment #14 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.in --- Hello Benson,
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #12)
c) Two warnings config-kernel.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/configk /lib64/libfl.so.2
* Fixed this by removing explicit linkage to -lfl. $ ldd ./configk linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007fff4eb57000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f8a7f21b000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f8a7f438000)
config-kernel.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/configk
* CFLAGS="-fPIE -pie" helped to fix this. $ file ./configk ./configk: ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1\012- (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, BuildID[sha1]=534ce544c299439bb4ac64dce83fbede5639ce66, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, stripped\012- data
Please see: SPEC: https://pjp.fedorapeople.org/config-kernel.spec SRPM: https://pjp.fedorapeople.org/config-kernel-0.2%5E6640364-4.fc39.src.rpm
* Please have a look again. Hope it works.
Thank you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2016144 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2016144&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6996223 to 7005481
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7005481 (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=2259602
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #17 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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 [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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: [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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2259602-config-kernel/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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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 7271 bytes in 1 files. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: config-kernel-0.2^6640364-4.fc40.x86_64.rpm config-kernel-debuginfo-0.2^6640364-4.fc40.x86_64.rpm config-kernel-debugsource-0.2^6640364-4.fc40.x86_64.rpm config-kernel-0.2^6640364-4.fc40.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/tmpqx3iluk_')] checks: 32, packages: 4
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: config-kernel-debuginfo-0.2^6640364-4.fc40.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/tmpnxhn38c9')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pjps/config-kernel/archive/66403648970d7cb11d1e48555b014c... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b1b20f76776feb2c56bf4378498b6e492d8b72fa4a79fe9a62cf538a72793e8b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b1b20f76776feb2c56bf4378498b6e492d8b72fa4a79fe9a62cf538a72793e8b
Requires -------- config-kernel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
config-kernel-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config-kernel-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- config-kernel: config-kernel config-kernel(x86-64)
config-kernel-debuginfo: config-kernel-debuginfo config-kernel-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id)
config-kernel-debugsource: config-kernel-debugsource config-kernel-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2259602 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, Python, fonts, PHP, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Thanks. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
--- Comment #18 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.in --- Great, thanks so much. :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/config-kernel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-40d429b903 (config-kernel-0.3-1.fc38) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-40d429b903
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-67e653a525 (config-kernel-0.3-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-67e653a525
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-40d429b903 (config-kernel-0.3-1.fc38) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-40d429b903
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-67e653a525 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-67e653a525 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-67e653a525
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=2259602
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-40d429b903 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-40d429b903 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-40d429b903
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=2259602
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-02-26 00:47:09
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-40d429b903 (config-kernel-0.3-1.fc38) 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=2259602
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-67e653a525 (config-kernel-0.3-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com