[Bug 2074312] New: Review Request: unrar-free - Free software version of the non-free unrar utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
Bug ID: 2074312 Summary: Review Request: unrar-free - Free software version of the non-free unrar utility Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcavalca@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/unrar-free/unrar-free.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/unrar-free/unrar-free-0.1.1-1.fc37....
Description: unrar-free is a free software version of the non-free unrar utility. This program is a simple command-line front-end to libarchive, and can list and extract RAR archives but also other formats supported by libarchive. It does not rival the non-free unrar in terms of features, but special care has been taken to ensure it meets most user's needs.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |michel@michel-slm.name Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michel@michel-slm.name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- - license should be GPLv2+ - unrar should require %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
looks good otherwise
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present.
===== 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. [!]: 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/dcavalca/2074312-unrar- free/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 20480 bytes in 5 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]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in unrar [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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: 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]: 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.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/bgermann/unrar-free/-/archive/0.1.1/unrar-free-0.1.1.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4bd85595f50f59d0c82f0d305fc9f63470ec23334c69f20f272bd17305b1f454 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4bd85595f50f59d0c82f0d305fc9f63470ec23334c69f20f272bd17305b1f454
Requires -------- unrar-free (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libarchive.so.13()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
unrar (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): unrar-free
unrar-free-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
unrar-free-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- unrar-free: unrar-free unrar-free(x86-64)
unrar: unrar unrar(x86-64)
unrar-free-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) unrar-free-debuginfo unrar-free-debuginfo(x86-64)
unrar-free-debugsource: unrar-free-debugsource unrar-free-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2074312 -m fedora-35-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-35-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, PHP, Java, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
--- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/unrar-free/unrar-free.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/unrar-free/unrar-free-0.1.1-1.fc37....
Changelog: - update license - update Requires for the wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- changes LGTM, APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Thanks!
$ fedpkg request-repo unrar-free 2074312 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/43621
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/unrar-free
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-886a6f3794 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-886a6f3794
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-04-12 17:10:23
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-886a6f3794 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-3d84381489 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3d84381489
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e41c5c4176 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e41c5c4176
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ef7cc77e0e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ef7cc77e0e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-07e04fade6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-07e04fade6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-39fb7081b4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-39fb7081b4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-07e04fade6 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-07e04fade6 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-07e04fade6
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=2074312
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e41c5c4176 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e41c5c4176
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=2074312
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-39fb7081b4 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-39fb7081b4 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-39fb7081b4
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=2074312
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ef7cc77e0e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ef7cc77e0e
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=2074312
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-3d84381489 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 --advisory=FEDORA-2022-3d84381489 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3d84381489
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=2074312
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e41c5c4176 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-07e04fade6 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-39fb7081b4 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ef7cc77e0e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074312
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-3d84381489 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
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com