Bug 1170529

*** Bug 828188 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Taking this review -- could you review this in return? Thanks beforehand!

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170875

Any idea where the testtool referenced in tests/test.sh comes from? I'm going through my review checklist and am about to suggest enabling at least some of the available tests, but hits a snag there. Checking the package's list of Debian dependencies don't really reveal anything informative either.

We can skip that for now I suppose.

Created attachment 965001 [details]
License check result

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]: 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:
     "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or
     generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 84 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/michel/sources/fedora/reviews/1170529-reprepro/licensecheck.txt
[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 430080 bytes in 28 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 %doc.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     Upstream sources contain tests/test.sh but between missing dependencies and 
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
     install is called without -p
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[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: reprepro-4.16.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          reprepro-4.16.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
reprepro.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/reprepro/docs/sftp.py
reprepro.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/reprepro/docs/pdiff.example /usr/bin/env
reprepro.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/reprepro/docs/outstore.py /usr/bin/python3
reprepro.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/reprepro/docs/outsftphook.py /usr/bin/python3
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
reprepro (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/env
    /usr/bin/python3
    libarchive.so.13()(64bit)
    libbz2.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdb-5.3.so()(64bit)
    libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit)
    libgpgme.so.11()(64bit)
    libgpgme.so.11(GPGME_1.0)(64bit)
    libgpgme.so.11(GPGME_1.1)(64bit)
    liblzma.so.5()(64bit)
    liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0.2)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
reprepro:
    reprepro
    reprepro(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://alioth.debian.org/frs/download.php/latestfile/464/reprepro_4.16.0.orig.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : fdd2cae3f23b26e3b44734925af5afb76486a46bde104254eb04d8344d98f591
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fdd2cae3f23b26e3b44734925af5afb76486a46bde104254eb04d8344d98f591


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1170529 -o--uniqueext=reprepro
Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64-reprepro
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Only three items need fixing (see [!])

- license should be GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and MIT, with a comment describing what files are not under GPLv2 (see attachment)

- try and enable at least some of the tests - or maybe create a %check section with a comment showing how to invoke the tests but document which missing dependencies are preventing us from running them

- try and adjust Makefile (or call make with the appropriate argument) so that install is called with -p to preserve timestamps


The latter two are not mandatory though (but the latter might cause 

Also, this rpmlint warning:
- sftp.py in docs should not have executable permission -- it's missing shebangs and doesn't have an if __name__ == '__main__' section

Looks like there hasn't been any action here for a while.

Igor, do you still have the spare cycles to see this through?

Thanks,

--scott

Igor - It's been a few months. Can you at least ping back if you're interested in keeping this review alive?

Thanks,

--scott

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1305737 ***

I need this tool for my work, so I've addressed all the comments in this review and added el7 support, in bug 1305737