Spec URL: http://jsbackus.fedorapeople.org/brd/brd.spec SRPM URL: http://jsbackus.fedorapeople.org/brd/brd-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: bit_rot_detector, or brd, is a tool to scan a directory tree and check each file for corruption caused by damage to the physical storage medium or by damage from malicious programs. Files are fingerprinted using the SHA-1 algorithm. File fingerprints, sizes, and modification times are stored in a SQLite database. Fedora Account System Username: jsbackus Note: Obsoletes bug 1111996.
*** Bug 1111996 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Note: This is an unofficial/preliminary review > 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: > "GPL (v2 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bmorbach > /fedora-review/1112434-brd/licensecheck.txt > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, > /usr/lib/python3.4 those are okay, owned by python3 on rawhide (see bug 1112409) > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, > /usr/lib/python3.4 see above > [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). > [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Please do a release and package that or add the date of the commit you are packaging to the Release field as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag > [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. > [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 30720 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: No rpmlint messages. > [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 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]: 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 > > Python: > [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. > [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should > provide egg info. > [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep > > ===== 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. > [-]: 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. > [x]: %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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: brd-1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm > brd-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > # rpmlint brd > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > > Requires > -------- > brd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/python3 > > > > Provides > -------- > brd: > brd > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/jsbackus/brd/archive/f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1d9f54b8d8972717f7e6cb41979d8eff46d812f5ff9034abebeaf7067d1ed38 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1d9f54b8d8972717f7e6cb41979d8eff46d812f5ff9034abebeaf7067d1ed38 > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1112434 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api > Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby > Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Hi Benedikt, (In reply to Benedikt Morbach from comment #2) > Note: This is an unofficial/preliminary review > Thanks for taking a look at it - no matter how official. :) > > [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > Please do a release and package that or add the date of the commit you are > packaging > to the Release field as per > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag > Good catch! Sorry about that - I missed retagging the release in the flurry to change name, etc. I have tagged the commit listed in the spec as release 1.0 in the repository. So the spec is unchanged and now should be correct. Thanks again! Regards, Jeff
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: "GPL (v2 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mock/sandbox/test/1112434-brd/licensecheck.txt [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 30720 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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). [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: brd-1.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm brd-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint brd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- brd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 Provides -------- brd: brd Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jsbackus/brd/archive/f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1d9f54b8d8972717f7e6cb41979d8eff46d812f5ff9034abebeaf7067d1ed38 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1d9f54b8d8972717f7e6cb41979d8eff46d812f5ff9034abebeaf7067d1ed38 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1112434 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG licensecheck.txt ----------------- GPL (v2 or later) ----------------- brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/setup.py brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/unit_tests/brd_unit_base.py brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/unit_tests/run_tests.sh brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/unit_tests/test_checkdb.py brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/unit_tests/test_diff.py brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/unit_tests/test_dupe_files.py brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/unit_tests/test_dupe_trees.py brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/unit_tests/test_list.py brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/unit_tests/test_misc.py brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/unit_tests/test_rm.py brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/unit_tests/test_scan.py ---------------------------- Now review notes: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Github "Github provides a mechanism to create tarballs on demand, either from a specific commit revision, or from a specific tag. If the upstream does not create tarballs for releases, you can use this mechanism to produce them. If the upstream does create tarballs you should use them as tarballs provide an easier trail for people auditing the packages." Spec refers the version from commit, not the release you have recently tagged. Except that, everything is OK.
Hi Denis, Thanks for reviewing! Hmm. I apologize, please clarify re: which commit I should be referencing. I am referencing commit f984731, which is what shows up at: https://github.com/jsbackus/brd/tags Additionally, git rev-parse 1.0 produces: f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07 If there is another rev I should be referencing, would you please give me a hint? :) Thanks again! Regards, Jeff
I mean, you created the release tarball: https://github.com/jsbackus/brd/archive/1.0.tar.gz So you can surely use this path in source instead of that based on commit hash.
Since the bug is already assigned, changing status to "Assigned".
Hi Denis, Thanks for your response! According to the SourceURL#GitHub guidelines: "For a number of reasons (immutability, availability, uniqueness), you must use the full commit revision hash when referring to the sources." I think the guidelines are insistent on using the commit hash because tags can be deleted and recreated on a different commit without any record or indication to those downloading it. Also, found these from the devel mailing list for reference: * https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-January/194209.html * https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-January/194363.html * https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-January/194498.html Regards, Jeff
Well, I also found it a bit unclear. I asked my sponsor, and he told me so. I think I need to investigate this topic more. PS: IMO, the only benefit to use hashes instead of tags is to bind to specific commit history point for security reasons, to prevent repository owner from modifying the history. More control over the upstream. It seems too much: most of the software still come in tarballs nowadays, and everybody's cool with that.
I ran into this question in a recent package review as well. To expand on Jeff's links to the discussion in January, if you look towards the end of the discussion about the github packaging guidelines at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/233 you can see that the archive URL was specifically not included in the guidelines. This is due to the fact that the github "archives" aren't really release tarballs in the traditional sense, they're just auto-generated tarballs from git tags (and tags are *much* easier to change than git hashes.) Hope this helps.
Thanks for the link, Rich. The wording used in this part of guidelines is a bit unclear indeed. We keep the spec in its current state; package is approved.
(In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #11) > Thanks for the link, Rich. The wording used in this part of guidelines is a > bit unclear indeed. We keep the spec in its current state; package is > approved. Hi Denis, Agreed - it got me turned around a couple of times. :) Thanks for the review! Regards, Jeff
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: brd Short Description: Scans directories and files for damage due to decay of storage medium Upstream URL: https://github.com/jsbackus/brd Owners: jsbackus Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
brd-1.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/brd-1.0-2.fc20
brd-1.0-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/brd-1.0-2.fc19
brd-1.0-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
brd-1.0-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.