Bug 1409326

Summary: Review Request: erlang-xmpp - Erlang/Elixir XMPP parsing and serialization library
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Randy Barlow <randy>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Jeremy Cline <jeremy>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: jeremy, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: jeremy: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: erlang-xmpp-1.1.4-1.fc26 Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-01-03 03:31:04 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1400097    

Description Randy Barlow 2016-12-31 18:52:36 UTC
Spec URL: https://bowlofeggs.fedorapeople.org/erlang-xmpp.spec
SRPM URL: https://bowlofeggs.fedorapeople.org/erlang-xmpp-1.1.4-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: XMPP is an Erlang XMPP parsing and serialization library, built on top of Fast XML.
Fedora Account System Username: bowlofeggs

Comment 1 Randy Barlow 2016-12-31 19:01:09 UTC
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17129046

Comment 2 Jeremy Cline 2017-01-01 19:03:56 UTC
Approved. There are a few rpmlint warnings you should consider fixing (see below), but otherwise it looks great!

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
     (v2.0)". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/vagrant/1409326-erlang-xmpp/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.
[N/A]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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
[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.
[N/A]: 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.
[N/A]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[x]: 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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
[ ]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: erlang-xmpp-1.1.4-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
erlang-xmpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C XMPP is an Erlang XMPP parsing and serialization library, built on top of Fast XML.
erlang-xmpp.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-xmpp.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
erlang-xmpp.src: E: description-line-too-long C XMPP is an Erlang XMPP parsing and serialization library, built on top of Fast XML.
erlang-xmpp.src:27: W: setup-not-quiet
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
erlang-xmpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C XMPP is an Erlang XMPP parsing and serialization library, built on top of Fast XML.
erlang-xmpp.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-xmpp.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.

erlang-xmpp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
https://github.com/processone/xmpp/archive/1.1.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 162d902c016eb85d0b569899840bd0cb6f9828b6c4781a31b288dbb5ce0b1598
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 162d902c016eb85d0b569899840bd0cb6f9828b6c4781a31b288dbb5ce0b1598

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1409326
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP

Comment 3 Kevin Fenzi 2017-01-02 21:12:26 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/erlang-xmpp

Comment 4 Randy Barlow 2017-01-03 03:18:05 UTC
The initial commit to dist-git is the original spec file, and the second commit has your recommended fix on the description line length: