Bug 1741304

Summary: Review Request: chan - Pure C implementation of Go channels
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Lukas Zapletal <lzap>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nathan Scott <nathans>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: agerstmayr, mgoodwin, nathans, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: nathans: 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: 2019-08-19 14:49:31 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 Lukas Zapletal 2019-08-14 17:51:13 UTC
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lzap/spec_reviews/master/SPECS/chan.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/lzap/spec_reviews/raw/master/SRPMS/chan-0.0.4-1.fc30.src.rpm
Description: Pure C implementation of Go channels
Fedora Account System Username: lzap

Comment 1 Nathan Scott 2019-08-16 04:02:55 UTC
Looks good Lukas!  There's a small number of improvements needed, see 'Issues' section below, but otherwise I think its good to go.

Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======

[!] Missing compiler build-requires line
BuildRequires: gcc
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

[!] Replace %post and %postun ldconfig use with
%ldconfig_scriptlets
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets

[!] %files devel section needs to own the new include subdirectory
%{_includedir}/%{name}

[!] %check section missing
Can we run ./src/chan_test with LD_LIBRARY_PATH set to .libs for this?


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)",
     "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 15 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/nathans/1741304-chan/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/include/chan
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/chan
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: 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]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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 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 chan
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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: chan-0.0.4-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          chan-devel-0.0.4-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          chan-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          chan-debugsource-0.0.4-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          chan-0.0.4-1.fc31.src.rpm
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: chan-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/tylertreat/chan/archive/0.0.4/chan-0.0.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 12d930dad94a822756e5622f17d234afbf83f731709fce0fad33e5ce60775e3b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 12d930dad94a822756e5622f17d234afbf83f731709fce0fad33e5ce60775e3b


Requires
--------
chan (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    librt.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

chan-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    chan(x86-64)
    libchan.so.0()(64bit)

chan-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

chan-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
chan:
    chan
    chan(x86-64)
    libchan.so.0()(64bit)

chan-devel:
    chan-devel
    chan-devel(x86-64)

chan-debuginfo:
    chan-debuginfo
    chan-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)

chan-debugsource:
    chan-debugsource
    chan-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1741304
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Python, Haskell, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, Java, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 2 Lukas Zapletal 2019-08-16 11:31:31 UTC
Thanks, all remarks solved in: https://github.com/lzap/spec_reviews/commit/62fad01026511ef116f0580dd9c63da02cc1183b

You can just re-run the tool (I haven't bumped the release if you don't mind).

Comment 4 Nathan Scott 2019-08-19 03:37:51 UTC
Looks good!

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2019-08-19 14:02:45 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/chan

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2019-11-04 03:04:26 UTC
FEDORA-2019-3c591aa10f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-3c591aa10f

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2019-11-04 03:04:44 UTC
FEDORA-2019-9076e47ed2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-9076e47ed2

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2019-11-05 00:47:20 UTC
chan-0.0.4-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-9076e47ed2

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2019-11-05 01:25:39 UTC
chan-0.0.4-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-3c591aa10f

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2019-11-13 09:56:12 UTC
chan-0.0.4-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2019-11-13 10:06:03 UTC
chan-0.0.4-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.