Bug 1662170
| Summary: | Review Request: ssh-tools - collection of various tools using ssh | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | sven.wick |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | mule, package-review, zebob.m |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | ppisar:
fedora-review?
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2022-08-21 01:01:29 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 177841 | ||
|
Description
sven.wick
2018-12-26 17:04:03 UTC
This is not official review as I'm not sponsored as a packager. See the Issues list for things that need correction. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== Issues ===== Man pages must not have 0755-permission, 0644 is enough. There is no changelog entries, you should include one for initial package. The shell-scripts have /usr/bin/env in shebangs, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shebang_lines Summary in spec-file should be capitalized. ===== MUST items ===== 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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pake/Src/fedora-rpm/reviews/ssh-tools /review-ssh-tools/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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]: 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. [!]: 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 [!]: Package must not have env, /bin/env and /usr/bin/env in shebang lines. ===== 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. [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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ssh-tools-1.5-1.fc29.noarch.rpm ssh-tools-1.5-1.fc29.src.rpm ssh-tools.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C collection of various tools using ssh ssh-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostkeys -> hotkeys, host keys, host-keys ssh-tools.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag ssh-tools.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/ssh-diff.1.gz ssh-tools.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/ssh-facts.1.gz ssh-tools.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/ssh-hostkeys.1.gz ssh-tools.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/ssh-ping.1.gz ssh-tools.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/ssh-version.1.gz ssh-tools.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C collection of various tools using ssh ssh-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostkeys -> hotkeys, host keys, host-keys ssh-tools.src: E: no-changelogname-tag ssh-tools.src:28: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 28, tab: line 1) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory ssh-tools.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C collection of various tools using ssh ssh-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostkeys -> hotkeys, host keys, host-keys ssh-tools.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag ssh-tools.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/vaporup/ssh-tools/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> ssh-tools.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/ssh-diff.1.gz ssh-tools.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/ssh-facts.1.gz ssh-tools.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/ssh-hostkeys.1.gz ssh-tools.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/ssh-ping.1.gz ssh-tools.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/ssh-version.1.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- ssh-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash bash openssh-clients Provides -------- ssh-tools: ssh-tools Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/vaporup/ssh-tools/archive/v1.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 001e2c796c00236a7f4c5dd29b64eb5cdcf550f71f7017d34756ad41c02204bc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 001e2c796c00236a7f4c5dd29b64eb5cdcf550f71f7017d34756ad41c02204bc Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ssh-tools Buildroot used: fedora-29-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 OK, updated the spec file which fixes all issues except the shebang one because the shebang gets replaced automatically which the Wiki URL also mentions The new version fixed rpmlint errors , now there is few warning left (see below). Otherwise the package looks good to be approved from my part.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ssh-tools-1.5-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
ssh-tools-1.5-1.fc29.src.rpm
ssh-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostkeys -> hotkeys, host keys, host-keys
ssh-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostkeys -> hotkeys, host keys, host-keys
ssh-tools.src:28: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 28, tab: line 1)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
- Use "install -p" to keep file timestamps - Use a better name for your archive: Source0: https://github.com/vaporup/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Don't use the .gz extension but a glob for man pages, because compression might change in the future: %{_mandir}/man1/ssh-*.1.* Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ssh-tools/review- ssh-tools/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ssh-tools-1.5-1.fc30.noarch.rpm ssh-tools-1.5-1.fc30.src.rpm ssh-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostkeys -> hotkeys, host keys, host-keys ssh-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostkeys -> hotkeys, host keys, host-keys ssh-tools.src:28: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 28, tab: line 1) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Don't forget you'll need to find a sponsor too when your package is approved. 1) Fixed mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs of rpmlint 2) Use "install -p" to keep file timestamps 3) Use a glob for man pages Not sure about the archive name. I packaged ssh-tools already for other distros which use this URL scheme from Github Also not sure about the other rpmlint warning. Maybe I should rename the binary in a future release, so it won't be recognized as spelling error. Looks good, package is approved but you sill need to find a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group Review stalled, resetting ticket status. If you still need to find a sponsor, consider submitting a ticket to https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issues (In reply to sven.wick from comment #5) > Not sure about the archive name. > I packaged ssh-tools already for other distros which use this URL scheme > from Github Try this instead URL: https://github.com/vaporup/%{name}/ Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz ah, I see. Changed... I am going to update the spec file for version 1.6 also... Updated to 1.6 Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/vaporup/pkg/master/ssh-tools/fedora/ssh-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/vaporup/pkg/raw/master/ssh-tools/fedora/ssh-tools-1.6-1.fc32.src.rpm (In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #7) > Review stalled, resetting ticket status. > If you still need to find a sponsor, consider submitting a ticket to > https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issues I like what you do but please don't review stale package that are in need of sponsorship. Sven, I've resent you a mail regarding a sponsorship This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted. |