Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/srakitnican/minecraft/mcrcon.git/tree/mcrcon.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/srakitnican/minecraft/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00474083-mcrcon/mcrcon-0.0.5-2.fc26.x86_64.rpm Description: Mcrcon is powerful IPv6 compliant minecraft rcon client with bukkit coloring support. It is well suited for remote administration and to be used as part of automated server maintenance scripts. Does not cause "IO: Broken pipe" or "IO: Connection reset" spam in server console. Features: - Interacive terminal mode. Keeps the connection alive. - Send multiple commands in one command line. - Silent mode. Does not print rcon output. - Support for bukkit coloring on Windows and Linux (sh compatible shells). - Multiplatform code. Compiles on many platforms with only minor changes. Fedora Account System Username: srakitnican This is my first package, thus I am seeking for a sponsor!
Sorry, wrong SRPM URL. SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/srakitnican/minecraft/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00474083-mcrcon/mcrcon-0.0.5-2.fc26.src.rpm
**This is an unofficial review** Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues ============== 1) *MUST* The description has lines exceeding 79 characters. Please split them across multiple lines to avoid this. 2) *MUST* The README.txt has incorrect end-of-line encoding. You can fix this with the following command: sed -i 's/\r$//' README.txt 3) *SHOULD* Consider writing a manpage for this so people understand how to use it. Here's a guide: http://www.schweikhardt.net/man_page_howto.html 4) *SHOULD* The link you have to the spec file is not linked to the "raw" spec file, but rather the Git page - it's better to link to the raw version. That way when people click to save the link, they get the spec file and not HTML. 5) *SHOULD* You do not need the line "rm -rf %{buildroot}" 6) *OPTIONAL* Consider using copr to build this as outlined here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Make_a_Package 7) *MUST* The source file mcrcon.c in your src rpm and the upstream source are different. I suspect because the source url you have is for SourceForge, and not the upstream github repo, which is here: https://github.com/Tiiffi/mcrcon Everything else seems to be alright. Good luck :) (rest of the review below can be ignored, all issues are enumerated above) ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "zlib/libpng". Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/pkg- review/mcrcon/mcrcon/licensecheck.txt [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mcrcon-0.0.5-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm mcrcon-0.0.5-2.fc24.src.rpm mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rcon -> econ, con, recon mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minecraft -> mine craft, mine-craft, craftiness mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minecraft -> mine craft, mine-craft, craftiness mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rcon -> econ, con, recon mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bukkit -> kabuki mcrcon.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Mcrcon is powerful IPv6 compliant minecraft rcon client with bukkit coloring support. mcrcon.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It is well suited for remote administration and to be used as part of automated server maintenance scripts. mcrcon.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Does not cause "IO: Broken pipe" or "IO: Connection reset" spam in server console. mcrcon.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/mcrcon/README.txt mcrcon.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mcrcon mcrcon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rcon -> econ, con, recon mcrcon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minecraft -> mine craft, mine-craft, craftiness mcrcon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minecraft -> mine craft, mine-craft, craftiness mcrcon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rcon -> econ, con, recon mcrcon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bukkit -> kabuki mcrcon.src: E: description-line-too-long C Mcrcon is powerful IPv6 compliant minecraft rcon client with bukkit coloring support. mcrcon.src: E: description-line-too-long C It is well suited for remote administration and to be used as part of automated server maintenance scripts. mcrcon.src: E: description-line-too-long C Does not cause "IO: Broken pipe" or "IO: Connection reset" spam in server console. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rcon -> econ, con, recon mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minecraft -> mine craft, mine-craft, craftiness mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minecraft -> mine craft, mine-craft, craftiness mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rcon -> econ, con, recon mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bukkit -> kabuki mcrcon.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Mcrcon is powerful IPv6 compliant minecraft rcon client with bukkit coloring support. mcrcon.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It is well suited for remote administration and to be used as part of automated server maintenance scripts. mcrcon.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Does not cause "IO: Broken pipe" or "IO: Connection reset" spam in server console. mcrcon.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/mcrcon/README.txt mcrcon.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mcrcon 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 7 warnings. Requires -------- mcrcon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- mcrcon: mcrcon mcrcon(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mcrcon/mcrcon-0.0.5-src.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 14cdbc00d5e2c4e877ea82fef3aeb94c2e258b3539c47a7f2b015cab12f98a74 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 14cdbc00d5e2c4e877ea82fef3aeb94c2e258b3539c47a7f2b015cab12f98a74 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn mcrcon-0.0.5-2.fc26.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Thank you for you review and pointers, couple of issues are not clear to me on what to do about. (In reply to Jared Wallace from comment #2) > Issues > ============== > > 1) *MUST* The description has lines exceeding 79 characters. Please split > them across multiple lines to avoid this. > > 2) *MUST* The README.txt has incorrect end-of-line encoding. You can fix > this with the following command: > > sed -i 's/\r$//' README.txt > > 3) *SHOULD* Consider writing a manpage for this so people understand how to > use it. Here's a guide: > http://www.schweikhardt.net/man_page_howto.html > I don't feel comfortable writing man page right now, maybe at some point. > 4) *SHOULD* The link you have to the spec file is not linked to the "raw" > spec file, but rather the Git page - it's better to link to the raw version. > That way when people click to save the link, they get the spec file and not > HTML. > > 5) *SHOULD* You do not need the line "rm -rf %{buildroot}" > > 6) *OPTIONAL* Consider using copr to build this as outlined here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ > Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Make_a_Package > It is build using copr as it can be found here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/srakitnican/minecraft/ > 7) *MUST* The source file mcrcon.c in your src rpm and the upstream source > are different. I suspect because the source url you have is for SourceForge, > and not the upstream github repo, which is here: > https://github.com/Tiiffi/mcrcon > I haven't noticed that. Beside different line endings, the differences are in two lines of comments. --- /tmp/github-mcrcon.c 2016-11-12 10:04:36.309383200 +0100 +++ /tmp/sourceforge-mcrcon.c 2012-08-31 00:07:06.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ /* - * Copyright (c) 2012-2013, Tiiffi <tiiffi -> gmail_dot_com> + * Copyright (c) 2012, Tiiffi <tiiffi_at_gmail_dot_com> * * This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied * warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ * - Program makes use of C99 feature (variable-length arrays) so "-std=gnu99" flag on * GCC-compiler must be used to avoid unecessary warnings. * - * - Rcon receive buffer is now bigger (2024 bytes -> 10240 bytes). + * - Rcon receive buffer is now bigger (2048 bytes -> 10240 bytes). * * Thanks to 'gman_ftw' @ Bukkit forums. * * - Fixed invalid error message when receiving empty rcon packet (10 bytes). I am not sure what to do about this. I am linking to sourceforge sources in spec file and to a release while github sources does not have releases AFAICT. Should I use snapshot from github? > Everything else seems to be alright. Good luck :) >
No worries on the manpage. If I have time today, I'll throw something together based off the builtin help it offers. As far as GH versus sourceforge...I'll defer to more experienced hands. I suppose on second thought perhaps this isn't as big an issue as I first thought - as long as you are aware of the need to monitor the upstream GH repo for any changes, and as long as upstream keeps the sourceforge release current with GH. If you haven't already, you might subscribe to the GH repo to make that easier.
Yes it seems author prefers GitHub and may make new releases for GitHub only. I've managed to work out release tagging with upstream so I've switched sources to use GitHub after all. New version with issues addressed: Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/srakitnican/minecraft/mcrcon.git/plain/mcrcon.spec?id=b1f241343487bfc34d68c4c870700c616bcbebcb SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/srakitnican/minecraft/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00476194-mcrcon/mcrcon-0.0.5-3.fc26.src.rpm (In reply to Jared Wallace from comment #4) > No worries on the manpage. If I have time today, I'll throw something > together based off the builtin help it offers. > That would be great!
Created attachment 1220028 [details] basic manpage
Awesome. Manpage is uploaded as an attachment :)
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/srakitnican/minecraft/epel-7-x86_64/00903177-mcrcon/mcrcon.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/srakitnican/minecraft/epel-7-x86_64/00903177-mcrcon/mcrcon-0.6.1-2.el7.src.rpm Updated to 0.6.1. Changes from a previous package release: * Use Fedora flags and enable debuginfo package * Use upstream makefile for build and install * Upstream manpage
- Group: is not used in Fedora Package is approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import. You still needto find a sponsor though. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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. [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", "zlib/libpng license". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mcrcon/review-mcrcon/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: mcrcon-0.6.1-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm mcrcon-debuginfo-0.6.1-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm mcrcon-debugsource-0.6.1-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm mcrcon-0.6.1-2.fc31.src.rpm mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rcon -> econ, con, recon mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minecraft -> mine craft, mine-craft, craftiness mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minecraft -> mine craft, mine-craft, craftiness mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rcon -> econ, con, recon mcrcon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bukkit -> kabuki mcrcon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rcon -> econ, con, recon mcrcon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minecraft -> mine craft, mine-craft, craftiness mcrcon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minecraft -> mine craft, mine-craft, craftiness mcrcon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rcon -> econ, con, recon mcrcon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bukkit -> kabuki 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
Disregard, you are already a member of the packager group. You can request your repo now.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mcrcon
FEDORA-2019-4687b6ac21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-4687b6ac21
FEDORA-2019-4d7558d225 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-4d7558d225
FEDORA-EPEL-2019-e01dd240b4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-e01dd240b4
mcrcon-0.6.1-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-4687b6ac21
mcrcon-0.6.1-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-4d7558d225
mcrcon-0.6.1-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2019-e01dd240b4
mcrcon-0.6.1-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
mcrcon-0.6.1-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
mcrcon-0.6.1-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.