Bug 2120002

Summary: Review Request: cinfo - fast and minimal system information tool
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Jonathan Wright <jonathan>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Jerry James <loganjerry>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora, loganjerry, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: loganjerry: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard: Trivial
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-08-26 18:25:26 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 Jonathan Wright 2022-08-20 19:07:26 UTC
Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedoraproject.org/cinfo.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedoraproject.org/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description: fast and minimal system information tool
Fedora Account System Username: jonathanspw

Comment 1 Jonathan Wright 2022-08-20 19:08:39 UTC
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91061105

Comment 2 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2022-08-22 13:06:08 UTC
> Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedoraproject.org/cinfo.spec
> SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedoraproject.org/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.src.rpm
Both of these give me a 404. I assume you meant to use fedorapeople.org links, not fedoraproject.org?
The files exist there.

> BuildRequires:  gcc
You need to BuildRequire "make" as well. It hasn't been part of the default buildroot since F34.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot

> %build
> %set_build_flags
This is not needed. %set_build_flags is called automatically from F36 onwards.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck

Comment 3 Jonathan Wright 2022-08-22 18:43:25 UTC
(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #2)
> > Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedoraproject.org/cinfo.spec
> > SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedoraproject.org/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.src.rpm
> Both of these give me a 404. I assume you meant to use fedorapeople.org
> links, not fedoraproject.org?
> The files exist there.

Doh.

> > BuildRequires:  gcc
> You need to BuildRequire "make" as well. It hasn't been part of the default
> buildroot since F34.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot

Fixed

> > %build
> > %set_build_flags
> This is not needed. %set_build_flags is called automatically from F36
> onwards.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck

It's needed for F35 and all EPEL.  I'm happy to wrap it in an %if block if you think it necessary but it seems unnecessary to me.

---

Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/cinfo.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.src.rpm

Comment 4 Jerry James 2022-08-26 03:57:29 UTC
Package Review
==============

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

Issues
======
- There are several build warnings that indicate possible runtime issues.
  The -Wrestrict warnings indicate code that can produce garbled output.
  The -Wformat-overflow warnings indicate possible buffer overflows.

- The -Os flag to gcc should not be used, since Fedora has selected -O2.

- Version 0.4.8 has been released, and includes your PR.

===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %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.
[x]: 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 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]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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.

     Upstream did not provide any tests.  Perhaps %check could simply run the
     binary and verify that it produces valid output; i.e., it doesn't
     segfault, etc.?

[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
cinfo.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only
cinfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug
cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug
cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cinfo-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only
cinfo-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only
cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/d3/f7d544db72d1d2e7673f5df06db55b9be88071 ../../../.build-id/d3/f7d544db72d1d2e7673f5df06db55b9be88071


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug
cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cinfo-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8)
ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug'

cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only
cinfo-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only
cinfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only
cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/d3/f7d544db72d1d2e7673f5df06db55b9be88071 ../../../.build-id/d3/f7d544db72d1d2e7673f5df06db55b9be88071
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s 


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/mrdotx/cinfo/archive/v0.4.6/cinfo-0.4.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 06517cc379ff7d864075a6d3d8e5619f17cb9fe47a7ac34fba11054e309213c0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 06517cc379ff7d864075a6d3d8e5619f17cb9fe47a7ac34fba11054e309213c0


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

cinfo-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

cinfo-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
cinfo:
    cinfo
    cinfo(x86-64)

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

cinfo-debugsource:
    cinfo-debugsource
    cinfo-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2120002 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ruby, Java, Perl, PHP, Ocaml, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 5 Jonathan Wright 2022-08-26 17:07:41 UTC
> - There are several build warnings that indicate possible runtime issues.
>   The -Wrestrict warnings indicate code that can produce garbled output.
>   The -Wformat-overflow warnings indicate possible buffer overflows.

I'll gather some info and report this to upstream.

> - The -Os flag to gcc should not be used, since Fedora has selected -O2.

I don't think there's anything in packaging guidelines prohibiting overriding some of the default flags.  In fact, guidelines say it's permissible.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags

"It's not worth maintaining a patch for it" seems like reasonable justification IMO considering the trivial difference between -O2 and -Os.

Regardless, I've created a patch to handle this and opened a PR upstream to see if upstream will change to O2 so we don't have to maintain a patch.

> - Version 0.4.8 has been released, and includes your PR.

Updated

Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/cinfo.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/cinfo-0.4.8-1.fc38.src.rpm

Comment 6 Jerry James 2022-08-26 17:54:40 UTC
(In reply to Jonathan Wright from comment #5)
> I don't think there's anything in packaging guidelines prohibiting
> overriding some of the default flags.  In fact, guidelines say it's
> permissible.

You are correct.  It isn't forbidden, although the guidelines do say that changing the -O option is "discouraged".

If you or upstream would like me to do so, I am happy to suggest patches for the warnings.

In the meantime, this package meets all of the packaging guidelines, so it is APPROVED.

Comment 7 Jonathan Wright 2022-08-26 17:56:42 UTC
> If you or upstream would like me to do so, I am happy to suggest patches for the warnings.

I'm sure upstream would appreciate it.  I did open an issue about it but C/C++ isn't my forte :)

https://github.com/mrdotx/cinfo/issues/4

Thanks for the review.

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-08-26 18:11:35 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cinfo

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2022-08-26 18:22:36 UTC
FEDORA-2022-0c4b69e57a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0c4b69e57a

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2022-08-26 18:25:26 UTC
FEDORA-2022-0c4b69e57a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2024-08-08 20:23:52 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-c60732ddf0 (cinfo-0.5.10-1.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-c60732ddf0

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2024-08-08 20:54:26 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-c60732ddf0 (cinfo-0.5.10-1.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.