Bug 1327050
| Summary: | Review Request: can-utils - SocketCAN userspace utilities and tools | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Panu Matilainen <pmatilai> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Panu Matilainen <pmatilai> |
| Status: | ON_QA --- | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | linville, package-review, pmatilai, sam.bristow |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | Flags: | linville:
fedora-review+
|
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-04-22 13:09:18 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Panu Matilainen
2016-04-14 07:40:59 UTC
Minor issues -- fix the BuildRequires and I will approve it. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - Two SHOULD items fail (due to lack of upstream support). These do not have to be fixed for this review. - Rpmlint warnings are overzealous/pedantic and not significant. ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1327050-can- utils/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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: 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 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 0 bytes in 0 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: 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 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 ------- Checking: can-utils-20160229git-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm can-utils-20160229git-1.fc22.src.rpm can-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace can-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace can-utils.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog can-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotpsend can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary slcanpty can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotpdump can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary canplayer can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary slcand can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bcmserver can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary log2asc can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cangen can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary can-calc-bit-timing can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotpsniffer can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotptun can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotpperf can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary canlogserver can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary candump can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary canbusload can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotpserver can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotprecv can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cansniffer can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary log2long can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cansend can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary canfdtest can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cangw can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary asc2log can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary slcan_attach can-utils.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace can-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace can-utils.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog can-utils.src: W: strange-permission can-snapshot.sh 775 can-utils.src: W: invalid-url Source0: can-utils-20160229git.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 33 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: can-utils-debuginfo-20160229git-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm can-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog can-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/can-utils-20160229git/slcanpty.c can-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/can-utils-20160229git/slcand.c 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- can-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace can-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace can-utils.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog can-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotpsend can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary slcanpty can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotpdump can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary canplayer can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary slcand can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bcmserver can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary log2asc can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cangen can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary can-calc-bit-timing can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotpsniffer can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotptun can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotpperf can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary canlogserver can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary candump can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary canbusload can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotpserver can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotprecv can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cansniffer can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary log2long can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cansend can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary canfdtest can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cangw can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary asc2log can-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary slcan_attach can-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog can-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/can-utils-20160229git/slcanpty.c can-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/can-utils-20160229git/slcand.c 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 29 warnings. Requires -------- can-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- can-utils: can-utils can-utils(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1327050 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 > Minor issues -- fix the BuildRequires and I will approve it. > > Note: These BR are not needed: gcc > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 Actually fedora-review is wrong here. There used to be such an exception list, but it was dropped in recently (last year or so) to make buildroots more minimal. See https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 and https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497, in particular https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497#comment:21 I'll have a look at the warnings and fix what makes sense (spelling etc) though. OK, I'll accept that. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/can-utils can-utils-20160229git-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8c1e55e18e can-utils-20160229git-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2c9f971c67 can-utils-20160229git-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-721f1da0ae John, thanks for the review, and you're obviously welcome as a co-maintainer if you want. Packages built + updates submitted for all active Fedora versions, considering this case closed. can-utils-20160229git-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8c1e55e18e can-utils-20160229git-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2c9f971c67 can-utils-20160229git-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-721f1da0ae can-utils-20160229git-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. can-utils-20160229git-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. can-utils-20160229git-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |