[Bug 2110055] New: Review Request: 6tunnel - 6tunnel allows you to use services provided by IPv6 hosts with IPv4-only applications and vice-versa.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2110055
Bug ID: 2110055 Summary: Review Request: 6tunnel - 6tunnel allows you to use services provided by IPv6 hosts with IPv4-only applications and vice-versa. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jonathan@almalinux.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/6tunnel.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/6tunnel-0.13-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: 6tunnel allows you to use services provided by IPv6 hosts with IPv4-only applications and vice-versa. It can bind to any of your IPv4 (default) or IPv6 addresses and forward all data to IPv4 or IPv6 (default) host. Fedora Account System Username: jonathanspw
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2110055
Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |carl@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |carl@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com --- rpmlint is complaining about the summary being too long, ending with a dot, and repeating the package name. The guidelines say the description should be wrapped at 80 characters, and I believe rpmlint wants to see the summary capped to that as well. I suggest using the snippet from the sidebar in GitHub.
-Summary: 6tunnel allows you to use services provided by IPv6 hosts with IPv4-only applications and vice-versa. +Summary: Tunnelling for application that don't speak IPv6
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_desc...
================================================================================
New packages since July must use SPDX identifiers.
-License: GPLv2 +License: GPL-2.0-only
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...
================================================================================
We don't really have autotools docs, but it's fairly well established that we should use the force flag with autoreconf to overwrite any generated files that may be included in the upstream tarball (such as install-sh in this case). A quick grep through all rawhide spec files shows me 729 instances with the force flag, and 170 without it.
-autoreconf --install +autoreconf -vif
================================================================================
The %configure macro already sets the prefix, so it's redundant to specify it again.
-%configure --prefix=%{_prefix} +%configure
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/rpm-4.17.1-release/macro...
================================================================================
6tunnel.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/6tunnel
This one isn't a blocker for the review, but you may consider discussing it with upstream to see if they have ideas about changes in the source code to address it. I found one discussion post about reversing the order of setuid/setgid calls.
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/rpmlint-missing-call-to-setgroups-bef...
================================================================================
6tunnel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/6tunnel/COPYING
This one isn't a blocker for the review, but please open an issue upstream to request they update the FSF address in their COPYING file.
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/rpm-4.17.1-release/macro...
================================================================================
6tunnel.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.1-1 ['0.13-1.fc38', '0.13-1']
It looks like you may have copied a changelog entry from a template or another package. Changing 0.1.1 to 0.13 should be enough to resolve this warning.
================================================================================
I don't see a %check section, but the tarball includes a test.py script. At a quick glance I think this does everything on localhost, so in theory it could work to run it in %check. Not a blocker but worth adding if you can get it sorted.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2110055
Jonathan Wright jonathan@almalinux.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(carl@redhat.com)
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wright jonathan@almalinux.org --- My oh my how far we've come in a month.
All should be resolved.
Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/6tunnel.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/6tunnel-0.13-1.fc36.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2110055
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wright jonathan@almalinux.org --- Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/6tunnel.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/6tunnel-0.13-1.fc38.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2110055
Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(carl@redhat.com) | Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #4 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com --- One more tiny adjustment needs to be made, but you can do that when you're importing the package into dist-git.
-%{__python3} test.py +%{python3} test.py
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_mandatory...
Other than that, PACKAGE APPROVED.
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/carl/packaging/reviews/6tunnel/2110055-6tunnel/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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2110055
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wright jonathan@almalinux.org ---
One more tiny adjustment needs to be made, but you can do that when you're importing the package into dist-git.
-%{__python3} test.py +%{python3} test.py
Fixed in my sources so it will be correct when I import it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2110055
--- Comment #6 from Tomas Hrcka thrcka@redhat.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/6tunnel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2110055
Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|POST |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |6tunnel-0.13-1.fc38 Last Closed| |2022-10-05 05:20:43
--- Comment #7 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com --- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8a4bfaa8ce
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com