Bug 1936138
| Summary: | Review Request: wyhash - No hash function is perfect, but some are useful | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ben Beasley <code> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Antonio T. sagitter <trpost> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | trpost:
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: | 2021-03-11 12:41:20 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 Beasley
2021-03-06 23:00:36 UTC
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed - Just a comment about versioning. Have the rpms a "snapshots" form of versioning? (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots) Why this date? 20210306 (6th March, 2021??) ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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. 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: "the Unlicense", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1936138-wyhash/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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. [-]: 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 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wyhash- devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: wyhash-devel-final1-1.20210306gitfinal.fc35.x86_64.rpm wyhash-doc-final1-1.20210306gitfinal.fc35.noarch.rpm wyhash-final1-1.20210306gitfinal.fc35.src.rpm wyhash-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wyrand -> randy wyhash-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US practrand -> practiced wyhash-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, ending wyhash-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation wyhash-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wyrand -> randy wyhash-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US practrand -> practiced wyhash-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, ending wyhash.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wyrand -> randy wyhash.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US practrand -> practiced wyhash.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, ending 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- wyhash-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wyrand -> randy wyhash-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US practrand -> practiced wyhash-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, ending wyhash-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation wyhash-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wyrand -> randy wyhash-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US practrand -> practiced wyhash-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, ending 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wangyi-fudan/wyhash/archive/wyhash_final/wyhash-wyhash_final.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d685c763b06b1a0485c09baa1dd752538ba192a6d270e52d1bfd2053d83024d8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d685c763b06b1a0485c09baa1dd752538ba192a6d270e52d1bfd2053d83024d8 Requires -------- wyhash-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wyhash-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- wyhash-devel: wyhash-devel wyhash-devel(x86-64) wyhash-static wyhash_final1-devel wyhash_final1-devel(x86-64) wyhash_final1-static wyhash-doc: wyhash-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1936138 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, fonts, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH > - Just a comment about versioning. > Have the rpms a "snapshots" form of versioning? > (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots) Yes, when you use the “forge” macros with a tag (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_tag_example), they automatically add a “snapshot” date. Unfortunately, the release template (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_release_example), which would not do this, very rarely works. Packaging variables read or set by %forgemeta forgeurl: https://github.com/wangyi-fudan/wyhash forgesource: https://github.com/wangyi-fudan/wyhash/archive/wyhash_final/wyhash-wyhash_final.tar.gz forgesetupargs: -n wyhash-wyhash_final archivename: wyhash-wyhash_final archiveext: tar.gz archiveurl: https://github.com/wangyi-fudan/wyhash/archive/wyhash_final/wyhash-wyhash_final.tar.gz topdir: wyhash-wyhash_final extractdir: wyhash-wyhash_final repo: wyhash scm: git tag: wyhash_final distprefix: .20210306gitfinal dist: .20210306gitfinal.fc33 (snapshot date is either manually supplied or computed once %{_sourcedir}/%{archivename}.%{archiveext} is available) It’s possible to work around drop the forge macros and construct the tag archive URL manually, e.g. https://github.com/wangyi-fudan/%{name}/archive/%{tag}.tar.gz. > Why this date? 20210306 (6th March, 2021??) It’s coming from the mtime on the source tarball. Actually, I guess that
%global distprefix %{nil}
before %forgemeta should prevent the snapshot versioning too.
Package approved. Thanks for the review! (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wyhash FEDORA-2021-e2e8e66542 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e2e8e66542 FEDORA-2021-46a6447f0d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-46a6447f0d FEDORA-2021-f12fb41198 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f12fb41198 FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7b083bc867 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7b083bc867 FEDORA-2021-e2e8e66542 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-e2e8e66542 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e2e8e66542 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7b083bc867 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7b083bc867 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-46a6447f0d has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-46a6447f0d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-46a6447f0d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-f12fb41198 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-f12fb41198 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f12fb41198 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-46a6447f0d has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2021-f12fb41198 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2021-e2e8e66542 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7b083bc867 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |