Bug 1249743 - Review Request: kaadbg - Remote debugger runner for kaa
Review Request: kaadbg - Remote debugger runner for kaa
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: René Ribaud
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 1249786
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2015-08-03 12:50 EDT by William Moreno
Modified: 2015-11-06 14:00 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2015-11-06 14:00:17 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
rene.ribaud: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description William Moreno 2015-08-03 12:50:31 EDT
Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/kaadbg.spec
SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/kaadbg-0.3.0-0.fc22.src.rpm
Description: Remote debugger runner for kaa
Fedora Account System Username: williamjmorenor
Comment 3 René Ribaud 2015-10-05 07:45:47 EDT
Hello William,

I think you updated the spec but you didn't rebuild the srpms.
So LICENSE file from the patch is missing.

[root@d7c7b3161665 noarch]# rpm -qpl kaadbg-0.3.0-0.fc24.noarch.rpm 

Otherwise that looks ok.
Comment 4 William Moreno 2015-10-05 18:35:23 EDT
Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/kaadbg.spec
SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/kaadbg-0.3.0-1.fc22.src.rpm

Here is the updated links to the last release.
Comment 5 René Ribaud 2015-10-07 08:28:08 EDT
Hello William,

Everything is ok from my point of view.
Just inform upstream to create a license file to be able to remove the License patch for the next release.

Package Review

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

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

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
[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
[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.
[-]: 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 1 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 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]: Dist tag is present.
[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
[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

[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[-]: 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 =====

[?]: 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.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
[-]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: kaadbg-0.3.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
kaadbg.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kaa -> aka, baa
kaadbg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kaa -> aka, baa
kaadbg.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kaa -> aka, baa
kaadbg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kaa -> aka, baa
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

kaadbg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/k/kaadbg/kaadbg-0.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c1d310f0981143bad3458e544302a7883c2a4579c91bdc81d49e7eba51b00a84
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1d310f0981143bad3458e544302a7883c2a4579c91bdc81d49e7eba51b00a84
Comment 6 René Ribaud 2015-11-06 05:52:56 EST
William, I think you shoulb push this one to rawhide.
Comment 7 William Moreno 2015-11-06 14:00:17 EST
There is a rawhide build, but I forget to set the but numbre in the F23 update.


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