Bug 1311909 - Review Request: compose-utils - utilitities for working with composes
Review Request: compose-utils - utilitities for working with composes
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Adam Miller
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2016-02-25 05:05 EST by Lubomír Sedlář
Modified: 2016-08-29 11:33 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2016-08-29 11:33:34 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
admiller: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Lubomír Sedlář 2016-02-25 05:05:11 EST
Spec URL: https://lsedlar.fedorapeople.org/compose-utils.spec
SRPM URL: https://lsedlar.fedorapeople.org/compose-utils-0.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: A set of tools for working with composes produced by pungi.
Fedora Account System Username: lsedlar

This is my first package and I need a sponsor. I am the upstream maintainer of the project.

Successful Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13125713
Comment 1 Adam Miller 2016-02-25 10:36:50 EST
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
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or
     generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/admiller/reviews/1311909-compose-
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[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 %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
[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 =====

[-]: 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.
[x]: 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
[-]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: compose-utils-0.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
compose-utils.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency kobo-rpmlib
compose-utils.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pungi -> fungi, punning
compose-utils.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/compose-utils/COPYING
compose-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compose-changelog
compose-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pungi -> fungi, punning
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
compose-utils.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency kobo-rpmlib
compose-utils.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pungi -> fungi, punning
compose-utils.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/compose-utils/COPYING
compose-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compose-changelog
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.

compose-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
https://pagure.io/releases/compose-utils/compose-utils-0.1.0.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0adee7a8e242295dd39bcb5d2fd165a130c2c0bb17cb5f7a65447d3f96a87e7b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0adee7a8e242295dd39bcb5d2fd165a130c2c0bb17cb5f7a65447d3f96a87e7b

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1311909 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
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

Everything looks good here, I would however like to see the FSF address fixed
in the licensing file. I'm not going to block the review on that though.

Comment 2 Upstream Release Monitoring 2016-02-25 14:12:56 EST
lsedlar's scratch build of compose-utils-0.1.1-1.fc25.src.rpm for f24 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13129940
Comment 3 Lubomír Sedlář 2016-02-25 14:21:11 EST
I have updated the COPYING file with the correct address.

Spec URL: https://lsedlar.fedorapeople.org/compose-utils.spec
SRPM URL: https://lsedlar.fedorapeople.org/compose-utils-0.1.1-1.fc25.src.rpm
Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-02-25 14:47:39 EST
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/compose-utils

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