Bug 2222041

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103228624

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6161941
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2222041-mlnx-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06161941-mlnx-tools/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

need a couple of changes
- Require systemd-udev for /lib/udev ownership
  optionally if udev is not required for basic functionality, recommend it but then declare %dir /lib/udev
- Can this be made noarch? It's mostly shell scripts

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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD 2-Clause License", "Common Public License 1.0", "GNU
     General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU
     General Public License, Version 2 Common Public License 1.0", "GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later", "MIT License". 18 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/davide/2222041-mlnx-
     tools/licensecheck.txt
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /lib/udev
     => need to Requires: systemd-udev
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /lib/udev
[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]: 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 2 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 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:
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: 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.
[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: mlnx-tools-23.07-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          mlnx-tools-23.07-1.fc38.src.rpm
======================================== rpmlint session starts =======================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmps9vi6cru')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx_dump_parser
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx_perf
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx_qos
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlx_fs_dump
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tc_wrap.py
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cma_roce_mode
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cma_roce_tos
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary common_irq_affinity.sh
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compat_gid_gen
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx-sf
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx_affinity
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx_bf_configure
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx_bf_configure_ct
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx_tune
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary set_irq_affinity.sh
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary set_irq_affinity_bynode.sh
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary set_irq_affinity_cpulist.sh
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary show_counters
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary show_gids
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary show_irq_affinity.sh
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary show_irq_affinity_hints.sh
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sysctl_perf_tuning
======== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 22 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ========




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx_dump_parser
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx_perf
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx_qos
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlx_fs_dump
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tc_wrap.py
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cma_roce_mode
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cma_roce_tos
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary common_irq_affinity.sh
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compat_gid_gen
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx-sf
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx_affinity
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx_bf_configure
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx_bf_configure_ct
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mlnx_tune
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary set_irq_affinity.sh
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary set_irq_affinity_bynode.sh
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary set_irq_affinity_cpulist.sh
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary show_counters
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary show_gids
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary show_irq_affinity.sh
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary show_irq_affinity_hints.sh
mlnx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sysctl_perf_tuning
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 22 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Mellanox/mlnx-tools/archive/54a51a79b3f161577e7226c30c3a5c01183fb956/mlnx-tools-54a51a79b3f161577e7226c30c3a5c01183fb956.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e8739813ed75b4ed699b3da82c7227d666e7e1d65d11e26cc425ac41d77e54cc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e8739813ed75b4ed699b3da82c7227d666e7e1d65d11e26cc425ac41d77e54cc


Requires
--------
mlnx-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    /usr/bin/python3
    /usr/bin/sh
    ethtool
    iproute
    pciutils



Provides
--------
mlnx-tools:
    mlnx-tools



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2222041 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, C/C++, Ocaml, Haskell, Python, fonts, Perl, Java, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/mlnx-tools/mlnx-tools.spec
SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/mlnx-tools/mlnx-tools-23.07-1.fc39.src.rpm

Changelog:
- add Requires for systemd-udevd

LGTM, approved

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mlnx-tools

FEDORA-2023-282fa2440b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-282fa2440b

FEDORA-2023-282fa2440b has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-f7fdcf9461 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f7fdcf9461

FEDORA-EPEL-2023-95efafb543 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-95efafb543

FEDORA-2023-f7fdcf9461 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2023-95efafb543 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.