Bug 1318278 - Review Request: erlang-cuttlefish - A library for dealing with sysctl-like configuration syntax
Summary: Review Request: erlang-cuttlefish - A library for dealing with sysctl-like co...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Randy Barlow
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-03-16 12:20 UTC by Peter Lemenkov
Modified: 2016-04-17 23:43 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-04-17 23:43:10 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
rbarlow: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Peter Lemenkov 2016-03-16 12:20:40 UTC
Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-cuttlefish.spec
SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-cuttlefish-2.0.6-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Cuttlefish is a library for Erlang applications that wish to walk the fine line between Erlang app.configs and a sysctl-like syntax. The name is a pun on the pronunciation of 'sysctl' and jokes are better explained.
Fedora Account System Username: peter

Comment 1 Randy Barlow 2016-04-11 19:48:42 UTC
Looks good! I put a few !'s in there, but they are all optional so it's your choice.


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

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



===== rbarlow items =====
These are all optional.

[!]: Consider using only spaces or tabs, but not both.


===== 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]: 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]: 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 /home/rbarlow/review/1318278-erlang-
     cuttlefish/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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
     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]: 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).
[?]: 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
     justified.
     Note: Please add some comments over each patch in the spec file
           describing why it is present. Consider adding patch 4 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]: 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]: 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: 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: erlang-cuttlefish-2.0.6-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
          erlang-cuttlefish-2.0.6-1.fc25.src.rpm
erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sysctl -> systolic
erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US configs -> con figs, con-figs, configure
erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sysctl -> systolic
erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cuttlefish
erlang-cuttlefish.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sysctl -> systolic
erlang-cuttlefish.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US configs -> con figs, con-figs, configure
erlang-cuttlefish.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sysctl -> systolic
erlang-cuttlefish.src:8: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 7)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sysctl -> systolic
erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US configs -> con figs, con-figs, configure
erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sysctl -> systolic
erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cuttlefish
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.



Requires
--------
erlang-cuttlefish (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    erlang-erts(x86-64)
    erlang-eunit(x86-64)
    erlang-getopt(x86-64)
    erlang-kernel(x86-64)
    erlang-lager(x86-64)
    erlang-mustache(x86-64)
    erlang-sasl(x86-64)
    erlang-stdlib(x86-64)
    erlang-syntax_tools(x86-64)



Provides
--------
erlang-cuttlefish:
    erlang-cuttlefish
    erlang-cuttlefish(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/basho/cuttlefish/archive/2.0.6/cuttlefish-2.0.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ca869b6dd34ca2b9dae84ce648a2734323466c25c505836e812eb73d79a7115b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ca869b6dd34ca2b9dae84ce648a2734323466c25c505836e812eb73d79a7115b


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1318278
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 2 Peter Lemenkov 2016-04-11 19:57:23 UTC
Randy, thanks for the review!
I'll send some patches upstream asap and ask for licensing doc.

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-04-12 15:41:13 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/erlang-cuttlefish

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2016-04-12 19:32:27 UTC
erlang-cuttlefish-2.0.6-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-97f9314c9a

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2016-04-13 21:24:08 UTC
erlang-cuttlefish-2.0.6-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-97f9314c9a

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2016-04-17 23:43:08 UTC
erlang-cuttlefish-2.0.6-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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