https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
Bug ID: 2169097 Summary: Review Request: scd2html - Generates HTML for scdoc source files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: gotmax@e.email QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/scd2html/scd2html.spec SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/scd2html/scd2html-1.0.0-1.fc37.src...
Description: scd2html generates HTML from scdoc source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/scd2html/2169097-scd2html/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. [?]: 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. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [?]: 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. [?]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: scd2html : /usr/share/pkgconfig/scd2html.pc [-]: 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. [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: scd2html-1.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm scd2html-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm scd2html-debugsource-1.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm scd2html-1.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp3mz6607x')] checks: 31, packages: 4
scd2html.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/pkgconfig/scd2html.pc 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.1 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: scd2html-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp16dyb7b9')] checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.0 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3
scd2html.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/pkgconfig/scd2html.pc 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.8 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://git.sr.ht/~bitfehler/scd2html/archive/v1.0.0.tar.gz#/scd2html-1.0.0.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 43143e11688f1681e1453609b7073032d613e4758fc205f7876672d14c5b47e9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 43143e11688f1681e1453609b7073032d613e4758fc205f7876672d14c5b47e9
Requires -------- scd2html (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
scd2html-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
scd2html-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- scd2html: pkgconfig(scd2html) scd2html scd2html(x86-64)
scd2html-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) scd2html-debuginfo scd2html-debuginfo(x86-64)
scd2html-debugsource: scd2html-debugsource scd2html-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2169097 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, Ruby, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, R, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) Should a smoke test be added, for example: ./scd2html < scd2html.1.scd > scd2html.html
Could also check validity of produced html using https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/w3c-markup-validator b) It seems ok not to have the pkgconfig file on its own in a devel package https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_pkgconfig_files_...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- re2c is also not used. Should linkify.c be removed and regenerated?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
--- Comment #3 from Maxwell G gotmax@e.email ---
a) Should a smoke test be added,
I'll just build the manpage as HTML in %build and include it in %doc.
Could also check validity of produced html
That doesn't seem appropriate here. This is not run upstream and we generally avoid linter like tools in %check.
b) It seems ok not to have the pkgconfig file on its own in a devel package
scd2html is a development tool.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
--- Comment #4 from Maxwell G gotmax@e.email --- Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/scd2html/scd2html.spec SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/scd2html/scd2html-1.0.0-1.fc37.src...
Initial package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://sr.ht/~bitfehler/sc | |d2html
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5519834 (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=2169097
--- Comment #6 from Maxwell G gotmax@e.email --- Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/scd2html/scd2html.spec SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/scd2html/scd2html-1.0.0-1.fc37.src...
Pass PREFIX to both %make_build and %make_install. Otherwise, the pkgconfig file has incorrect data.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1943756 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1943756&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5519834 to 5519839
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5519839 (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=2169097
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks. It builds on all arches: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/scd2html/build/5521452/
Could you add a comment in the spec that generation of html file is a basic test.
APPROVED.
Would appreciate a review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168546 if time allows.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/scd2html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
--- Comment #11 from Maxwell G gotmax@e.email --- Thank you for the review, Benson. I'll try to take a look at the other review request.
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/51115
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-226ecb8639 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-226ecb8639
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-02-13 19:09:26
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-226ecb8639 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-14376b049e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-14376b049e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-14376b049e 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=2169097
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b427809c69 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b427809c69
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169097
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b427809c69 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-b427809c69 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b427809c69
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=2169097
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b427809c69 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org