Bug 1763261

Summary: Review Request: z - Maintains a jump-list of the directories you actually use
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Ben Cotton <bcotton>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: package-review, sanjay.ankur
Target Milestone: ---Flags: sanjay.ankur: 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: 2019-11-06 13:44:57 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 Ben Cotton 2019-10-18 15:31:55 UTC
Spec URL: https://bcotton.fedorapeople.org/z/z.spec
SRPM URL: https://bcotton.fedorapeople.org/z/z-1.9-0.fc30.src.rpm
Description: Tracks your most used directories, based on 'frecency'. After a short learning phase, z will take you to the most 'frecent' directory that matches ALL of the regexps given on the command line, in order.
Fedora Account System Username: bcotton

(This script is designed to be sourced in the shell environment, not explicitly executed)

Comment 1 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2019-10-21 19:13:12 UTC
Looks pretty good. Few minor issues, most of them cosmetic:

- Release should be 1 instead of 0
- 1.11 seems available
- gzip shouldn't be required as BR
- should the file be in %{_libexecdir} or a package specific folder in %_datadir?
- the spec is missing a URL tag
- you don't need to use projname and desc macros here since they're only being
  used once.
- you can use %autosetup instead of the setup macro:
  https://rpm.org/user_doc/autosetup.html

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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[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
[-]: 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.
[!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
^
Should the script go in libexecdir or another directory? I see git put it's
script in /usr/share/.. (%_datadir)

[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
^
I don't think gzip needs to be included as a BR.

[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]: 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 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]: 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.
^
An issue is filed here already:
https://github.com/rupa/z/issues/273

Maybe worth adding in the spec as a comment.

[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
^
Not tested yet.

[!]: Latest version is packaged.
^
Looks like upstream released 1.11 as a tag. Worth using that:
https://github.com/rupa/z/releases/tag/v1.11

[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not 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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: z-1.9-0.fc32.noarch.rpm
          z-1.9-0.fc32.src.rpm
z.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frecency -> frequency
z.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frecent -> recent, f recent, frequent
z.noarch: W: no-url-tag
z.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frecency -> frequency
z.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frecent -> recent, f recent, frequent
z.src: W: no-url-tag
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
^
Please add a URL tag to the spec.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_GB.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_GB.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
z.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frecency -> frequency
z.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frecent -> recent, f recent, frequent
z.noarch: W: no-url-tag
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/rupa/z/archive/v1.9.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e2860e4f65770e02297ca4ca08ec1ee623a658bd9cc1acddbbe5ad22e1de70a7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e2860e4f65770e02297ca4ca08ec1ee623a658bd9cc1acddbbe5ad22e1de70a7


Requires
--------
z (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Provides
--------
z:
    z


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1763261
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }}
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, Python, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 2 Ben Cotton 2019-10-22 16:47:21 UTC
Updated with suggested changes:
Spec URL: https://bcotton.fedorapeople.org/z/z.spec
SRPM URL: https://bcotton.fedorapeople.org/z/z-1.11-1.fc30.src.rpm

Comment 3 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2019-10-22 17:43:10 UTC
Looks good. One tiny issue, but you can correct it before import: %{_datadir}/z is not owned by the package. Changing the files section to this will fix that:

%files
%{_datadir}/z
%{_mandir}/man1/z.1*


XXX APPROVED XXX

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2019-10-28 15:31:26 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/z

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2019-10-28 17:44:16 UTC
FEDORA-2019-db6df19540 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-db6df19540

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2019-10-29 04:29:06 UTC
z-1.9-0.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-db6df19540

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2019-11-06 13:44:57 UTC
z-1.9-0.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.