Bug 2110050

*** Bug 2110051 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 2110054 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Fedora review dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.src.rpm 2022-07-29

$ rpmlint dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.src.rpm \
          dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm

dnstracer.src: E: summary-too-long Dnstracer determines where a given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data.
dnstracer.x86_64: E: summary-too-long Dnstracer determines where a given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data.
dnstracer.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Dnstracer determines where a given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data.
dnstracer.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Dnstracer determines where a given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data.
dnstracer.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Dnstracer
dnstracer.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Dnstracer
dnstracer.spec:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 14)
dnstracer.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/dnstracer


Can you fix the summary so that it's not excessively long? Debian packages often have good summaries and you could maybe copy the text from https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/dnstrace, 'Trace DNS queries to the source'

Rpmlint also warns about mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs. You could make rpmlint happy by only using one or the other.


+ OK
! needs attention

! rpmlint warnings above need a bit of work
+ The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package name.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
  Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The license text (LICENSE) is included in %license
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm
  SHA512 (dnstracer-1.9.tar.gz) = e69fe772062ff315ff3148c26df78bd41c75d11dcfa6431f1e9374e6069182bd80826b22dc116011d975838d9527913d46edd78de049edd25e3ac9247d5f3473
  SHA512 (Download/dnstracer-1.9.tar.gz) = e69fe772062ff315ff3148c26df78bd41c75d11dcfa6431f1e9374e6069182bd80826b22dc116011d975838d9527913d46edd78de049edd25e3ac9247d5f3473
+ Package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a locale handling
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all the directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect the runtime of application
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
n/a Development files should be in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a Proper .desktop file handling
+ Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8
+ Package does not depend on deprecated packages


> #%%global debug_package %%{nil}

Is this needed? I'd just delete this line if not.


> %setup -q
> %patch0 -p1

If you want to, you could replace these two lines with
%autosetup -p1
... which in my opinion makes patching packages slightly easier as it removes the need to update %patchX lines when adding/removing patches.


> %configure --prefix=%{_prefix}

Passing --prefix shouldn't be necessary here because it's already included in %configure macro (see 'rpm -E %configure').


> * Thu Jul 21 2022 jonathanspw <jonathan> - 1.9-1

Maybe use your real name here instead of jonathanspw? Your call really :)

(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #3)
> Fedora review dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.src.rpm 2022-07-29
> 
> $ rpmlint dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.src.rpm \
>           dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm
> 
> dnstracer.src: E: summary-too-long Dnstracer determines where a given Domain
> Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS
> servers back to the servers which know the data.
> dnstracer.x86_64: E: summary-too-long Dnstracer determines where a given
> Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of
> DNS servers back to the servers which know the data.
> dnstracer.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Dnstracer determines where a given
> Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of
> DNS servers back to the servers which know the data.
> dnstracer.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Dnstracer determines where a
> given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the
> chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data.
> dnstracer.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Dnstracer
> dnstracer.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Dnstracer
> dnstracer.spec:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab:
> line 14)
> dnstracer.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/dnstracer
> 
> 
> Can you fix the summary so that it's not excessively long? Debian packages
> often have good summaries and you could maybe copy the text from
> https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/dnstrace, 'Trace DNS queries to the
> source'

Fixed

> Rpmlint also warns about mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs. You could make
> rpmlint happy by only using one or the other.

Fixed

> + OK
> ! needs attention
> 
> ! rpmlint warnings above need a bit of work

Fixed

> + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines
> + The spec file name matches the base package name.
> + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
> + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
>   Licensing Guidelines.
> + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
> + The license text (LICENSE) is included in %license
> + Spec file is written in American English
> + Spec file is legible
> + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm
>   SHA512 (dnstracer-1.9.tar.gz) =
> e69fe772062ff315ff3148c26df78bd41c75d11dcfa6431f1e9374e6069182bd80826b22dc116
> 011d975838d9527913d46edd78de049edd25e3ac9247d5f3473
>   SHA512 (Download/dnstracer-1.9.tar.gz) =
> e69fe772062ff315ff3148c26df78bd41c75d11dcfa6431f1e9374e6069182bd80826b22dc116
> 011d975838d9527913d46edd78de049edd25e3ac9247d5f3473
> + Package builds in koji
> n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
> + BuildRequires look sane
> n/a locale handling
> + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
> n/a Package isn't relocatable
> + Package owns all the directories it creates
> + No duplicate files in %files
> + Permissions are properly set
> + Consistent use of macros
> + The package must contain code or permissible content
> n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
> + Files marked %doc should not affect the runtime of application
> n/a Static libraries should be in -static
> n/a Development files should be in -devel
> n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
> + Packages should not contain libtool .la files
> n/a Proper .desktop file handling
> + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages
> + Filenames are valid UTF-8
> + Package does not depend on deprecated packages
> 
> 
> > #%%global debug_package %%{nil}
> 
> Is this needed? I'd just delete this line if not.

Development leftovers.  Fixed.

> > %setup -q
> > %patch0 -p1
> 
> If you want to, you could replace these two lines with
> %autosetup -p1
> ... which in my opinion makes patching packages slightly easier as it
> removes the need to update %patchX lines when adding/removing patches.

Done.  Thanks for the suggestion.

> > %configure --prefix=%{_prefix}
> 
> Passing --prefix shouldn't be necessary here because it's already included
> in %configure macro (see 'rpm -E %configure').

Fixed

> > * Thu Jul 21 2022 jonathanspw <jonathan> - 1.9-1
> 
> Maybe use your real name here instead of jonathanspw? Your call really :)

Gotta love rpmdev-newspec :)  Adjusted to my name.

Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/dnstracer.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.src.rpm

Everything looks good to me!

APPROVED

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-961ad5de4d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-961ad5de4d

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-115b72ef4c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-115b72ef4c

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-961ad5de4d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-961ad5de4d

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-115b72ef4c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-115b72ef4c

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ea952aa4c5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ea952aa4c5

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c9317f3ed5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c9317f3ed5

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c9317f3ed5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ea952aa4c5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.