Bug 2362977
| Summary: | Review Request: trafix - A terminal-based monitoring tool for Linux | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | masoud bolhassani <masoud.bolhassani> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 42 | CC: | package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | https://github.com/msoodb/%{name} | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | --- | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2025-05-02 18:23:23 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: | |||
| Attachments: | |||
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8980559 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2362977-trafix/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08980559-trafix/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. Created attachment 2087886 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8980559 to 8981934
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8981934 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2362977-trafix/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08981934-trafix/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. Created attachment 2087887 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8981934 to 8981956
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8981956 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2362977-trafix/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08981956-trafix/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. Created attachment 2087889 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8981956 to 8982059
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8982059 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2362977-trafix/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08982059-trafix/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. I've manually tested the package build using mock: mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 SRPMS/trafix-1.0.1-1.fc42.src.rpm Build completed successfully. Logs and RPMs are available in /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/. Updated review checklist: [x]: Package builds successfully in mock using fedora-rawhide-x86_64. Let me know if anything else is needed. Thanks! ===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 955 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
|
Review Request: trafix - A terminal-based monitoring tool for Linux Description: I would like to request a review of my application, trafix, for inclusion in the Fedora repositories. Name: trafix Version: 1.0.3 Upstream URL: https://github.com/msoodb/trafix Source tarball: https://github.com/msoodb/trafix/releases/download/v1.0.3/trafix-1.0.3-1.fc42.src.rpm Description of the Application: Trafix is a terminal-based network monitoring tool for Linux, which provides real-time network statistics including IP, gateway, DNS, Wi-Fi SSID, signal strength, bitrate, frequency, MAC address, and other network metrics. I have followed the Fedora packaging guidelines and prepared the RPM spec file. Please review my package to ensure it meets the necessary criteria to be included in Fedora. Thank you for your time and review. Reproducible: Always Reproducible: Always