Bug 2117772

Please note, the package was already proposed back in 2010.
The package it was "retired" in 2020 because never imported, see BZ#564412

Successful koji build
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=90712232

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

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

Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bwping
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names


===== 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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License". 21 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jonathan/fedora-review/bwping/2117772-bwping/licensecheck.txt
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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 30720 bytes in 4 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]: 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 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:
[x]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[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.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/oleg-derevenetz/bwping/archive/RELEASE_2.5/bwping-RELEASE_2.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : fbdacafb7ae6f4f30d6843ac2722ada3d0df024af83596646a5454eec061adfc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fbdacafb7ae6f4f30d6843ac2722ada3d0df024af83596646a5454eec061adfc


Requires
--------
bwping (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

bwping-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

bwping-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
bwping:
    bwping
    bwping(x86-64)

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

bwping-debugsource:
    bwping-debugsource
    bwping-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2117772
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, R, Python, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comments
------------
1. Add `COPYING` to %license
2. I'd personally remove the old changelog that never made it into Fedora.  Just start it with yours.
3. `INSTALL` should not be packaged as documentation - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
4. You need to add a %check section.  Upstream includes tests so we need to run them.  A few of them will fail inside of mock and will need to be excluded but we should run what we can.
  I did this with a simple section like this between %build and %install:

```
%check
make check
```

5. This looks like a super handy tool.  Please package it for epel8 and epel9 once approved ;)  It builds on both.

First of all, thank you.

(In reply to Jonathan Wright from comment #3)
> Comments
> ------------
> 1. Add `COPYING` to %license

OK

> 2. I'd personally remove the old changelog that never made it into Fedora. 
> Just start it with yours.

OK

> 3. `INSTALL` should not be packaged as documentation -
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation

Yep.

> 4. You need to add a %check section.  Upstream includes tests so we need to
> run them.  A few of them will fail inside of mock and will need to be
> excluded but we should run what we can.
>   I did this with a simple section like this between %build and %install:
> 
> ```
> %check
> make check
> ```

The point is also that the tool should run as privileged users. So, while i.e. sudo ./tests/sanity works, ./tests/sanity doesn't
I will exclude all the failing ones. Could be ok?

> 5. This looks like a super handy tool.  Please package it for epel8 and
> epel9 once approved ;)  It builds on both.

Sure.

> The point is also that the tool should run as privileged users. So, while i.e. sudo ./tests/sanity works, ./tests/sanity doesn't
> I will exclude all the failing ones. Could be ok?

Yep :)

Ok.
Removing the test files with rm doesn't work. So I've created a patch file in order to modify the Makefile.am

Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/bwping/bwping.spec
SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/bwping/bwping-2.5-1.fc37.src.rpm

Looks good to me!  Approved.

(In reply to Jonathan Wright from comment #7)
> Looks good to me!  Approved.

Great! Thank you very much.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a7e6f563e6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a7e6f563e6

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-70606723de has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-70606723de

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-70606723de 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-2022-70606723de

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a7e6f563e6 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-a7e6f563e6

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a7e6f563e6 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-2022-70606723de has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.