Bug 1020961 - Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
Summary: Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Matthias Runge
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-10-18 15:30 UTC by Flavio Percoco
Modified: 2013-11-10 20:17 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version: jq-1.3-2.fc20
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-11-10 07:39:56 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
mrunge: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
imcomplete spec for reference (1.35 KB, text/x-rpm-spec)
2013-10-20 17:09 UTC, Pádraig Brady
no flags Details

Description Flavio Percoco 2013-10-18 15:30:00 UTC
Spec URL: http://s.f87.me/18sSh2b
SRPM URL: http://s.f87.me/H5Dy3D
Description: lightweight and flexible command-line JSON processor
Fedora Account System Username: flaper87

Comment 2 Christopher Meng 2013-10-18 16:59:14 UTC
CC cuz of interests.

Comment 3 Jakub Ruzicka 2013-10-18 17:45:17 UTC
Looks good, just a few nits.


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

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


Issues:
 * Short name for Apache Software Licence 2.0 is ASL 2.0. Also, CC-BY should be
   sufficient. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing
 * parser.[ch] seem to be GPLv3


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be
     documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: 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 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 %doc.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[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]: 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
-------
Checking: jq-1.3-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
          jq-1.3-1.fc19.src.rpm
jq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sed -> tied, ed, seed
jq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awk -> awl, aw, wk
jq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment
jq.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
jq.x86_64: W: invalid-license CC-BY-3.0
jq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jq
jq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sed -> tied, ed, seed
jq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awk -> awl, aw, wk
jq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment
jq.src: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
jq.src: W: invalid-license CC-BY-3.0
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint jq
jq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sed -> tied, ed, seed
jq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awk -> awl, aw, wk
jq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment
jq.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
jq.x86_64: W: invalid-license CC-BY-3.0
jq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jq
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



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



Provides
--------
jq:
    jq
    jq(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
http://stedolan.github.io/jq/download/source/jq-1.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 623f23c36abfc1d96d85020cf421b56f90a229d566f26a4a0d3e8536244bfed7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 623f23c36abfc1d96d85020cf421b56f90a229d566f26a4a0d3e8536244bfed7

Comment 4 Pádraig Brady 2013-10-20 17:07:27 UTC
Please use fedora-review flags for feedback

This still needs a bit of work. It should have a basic man page.
There is a jq.1.default one can use if not building.

Building the manpage should be doable though.
At a guess you just need to buildRequires rubygem-ronn and rake,
and remove these seeminly redundundant deps from the source with a patch:
 -require 'bonsai'
 -require 'liquid'
 -require 'maruku'
 -require 'json'

Also we should make check.

Also we don't seem to need python to build.

Also we do we really need flex-devel and bison-devel,
as opposed to just flex and bison.

I did a quick spec (attached) build with the above for f20, but it hit:

jq_test.c: In function 'run_jq_tests':
jq_test.c:42:10: warning: ignoring return value of 'fgets', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result]
     fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), testdata);
          ^

So that would require patching the source, or removing -Wall from the
build args or something.

I've left it there for now.

Comment 5 Pádraig Brady 2013-10-20 17:09:36 UTC
Created attachment 814260 [details]
imcomplete spec for reference

Comment 7 Jakub Ruzicka 2013-10-21 18:44:52 UTC
 * License breakdown is fixed
 * %check was added and works for me
 * man page was added and looks good
 * python isn't required any more
 * just flex and bison are required instead of their -devel version

If %check is x86 conditional, shouldn't valgrind BuildRequires be as well?

Comment 8 Pádraig Brady 2013-10-21 20:04:31 UTC
This builds on arm,i686,x86_64 to good to go.

Probably should tweak...

valgrind buildreq should be under the same arch check as Jakub suggests
You might want to tag the doc/ files (and man/) as %doc
Also the changelog needs a tweak from 1.3-1 to 1.3-2

Comment 9 Matthias Runge 2013-10-24 08:01:40 UTC
Since the first review should be done by a sponsor, I'll do a formal review again, and will mentor and sponsor Flavio.

Comment 10 Matthias Runge 2013-10-24 08:14:35 UTC
Flavio, when increasing the release, please add a changelog entry, everytime!

The specs from SRPM and from gist.github,com differ at this point, so this issue is not detected by rpmlint.

please nuke the dots between the paragraphs from the description.

Everything else looks sane to me.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

Please fix those minors at import time.

Comment 12 Flavio Percoco 2013-10-24 09:06:32 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jq
Short Description: Lightweight and flexible command-line JSON processor
Owners: flaper87
Branches: f20

Comment 13 Pádraig Brady 2013-10-24 10:57:08 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jq
Short Description: Lightweight and flexible command-line JSON processor
Owners: flaper87
Branches: f19 f20 el6

Comment 14 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-10-24 12:00:22 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 15 Flavio Percoco 2013-10-24 12:55:28 UTC
Packages for f19, f20 and el6 were built successfully.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2013-10-25 16:46:48 UTC
jq-1.3-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jq-1.3-2.el6

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2013-10-25 16:48:15 UTC
jq-1.3-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jq-1.3-2.fc20

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2013-10-26 18:49:47 UTC
jq-1.3-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2013-11-10 07:39:56 UTC
jq-1.3-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2013-11-10 20:17:15 UTC
jq-1.3-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.