Bug 2235272

Summary: Review Request: trend - A General-Purpose, Efficient Trend Graph
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Iñaki Ucar <i.ucar86>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: NEW --- QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: kanru, package-review
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: https://www.thregr.org/wavexx/software/%{name}
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Iñaki Ucar 2023-08-28 09:04:12 UTC
Spec URL: https://iucar.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/trend.spec
SRPM URL: https://iucar.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/trend-1.4-1.fc38.src.rpm

trend is a general-purpose, efficient trend graph for "live" data. Data is
read in ASCII form from a file or continuously from a FIFO and displayed in
real-time into a multi-pass trend (much like a CRT oscilloscope). trend can
be used as a rapid analysis tool for progressive or time-based data series
together with trivial scripting.

Fedora Account System Username: iucar

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2023-08-28 09:12:31 UTC
Copr build:

Review template:

Please take a look if any issues were found.

This comment was created by the 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.

Comment 2 Kan-Ru Chen 2024-02-24 00:02:52 UTC
I'm currently not a packager. This is only an informal review.

Package Review

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

- License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
  Note: upstream did not explicitly state if later version of LGPL can
  be used. It's better to clarify, or change the License field to

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
[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 14270 bytes in 7 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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.

Checking: trend-1.4-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
=============================================== rpmlint session starts ===============================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpz8vzo3wa')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

trend.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Trend
trend.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Trend
========= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ==========

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
Checking: trend-debuginfo-1.4-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
=============================================== rpmlint session starts ===============================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpmlvgcnsv')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ==========

Rpmlint (installed packages)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
checks: 32, packages: 3

trend.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Trend
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 

Source checksums
https://www.thregr.org/wavexx/software/trend/releases/trend-1.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 690c187c7046c70e267b3dbe0de42d89f5cdaf75a414653b5366deb3594a6155
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 690c187c7046c70e267b3dbe0de42d89f5cdaf75a414653b5366deb3594a6155

trend (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

trend-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

trend-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):




Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235272
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: R, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, Haskell