Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews//dl-fedora.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews//dl-fedora-0.6-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Tool to download Fedora iso and image files.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37534176
Hi, I'm not sponsored packager yet (Miro Hroncok in cc is). Package seems to be ok to me. There are just few warnings from rpmlint which don't seem to be big problems. This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text 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: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /root/review/FedoraReview/1750103-dl- fedora/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/doc/dl- fedora(locale,, to, defaulting, C, Failed, set), /usr/share/licenses/dl-fedora(locale,, to, defaulting, C, Failed, set) [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [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 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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). [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]: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dl-fedora-0.6-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm dl-fedora-0.6-1.fc32.src.rpm dl-fedora.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iso -> ISO, is, so dl-fedora.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dl-fedora dl-fedora.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iso -> ISO, is, so 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). dl-fedora.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iso -> ISO, is, so dl-fedora.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/dl-fedora <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> dl-fedora.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dl-fedora 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
(In reply to Petr Schindler from comment #2) > This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are > also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: > - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such > a list, create one. > - Add your own remarks to the template checks. > - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not > listed by fedora-review. > - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this > case you could also file a bug against fedora-review > - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines > in what you paste. > - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint > ones are mandatory, though) > - Remove this text Petr, I suggest next time to remove this text (see the last line of it). > Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Seems that part of the report is missing.
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/dl-fedora explicitly says "GPL-3.0-only", but the spec has "License: GPLv3+"
Ah thanks - I can correct that... It is partly my fault - actually the intention is GPL3+ but older Haskell Cabal packaging doesn't make the distinction - so I should really update to Cabal 2...
I'm sorry. I forgot to NOT copy the instructions. List of require and provides seems sane to me: Requires -------- dl-fedora (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libffi.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- dl-fedora: dl-fedora dl-fedora(x86-64) I haven't noticed that difference in Licensing I just checked that it is GPLv3. Sorry about that too.
I marked it GPLv3 for now to be consistent, thanks: Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/dl-fedora/dl-fedora.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/dl-fedora/dl-fedora-0.6-2.fc31.src.rpm (Just for the record there was already a comment in dl-fedora.cabal about it.)
Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/dl-fedora/dl-fedora.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/dl-fedora/dl-fedora-0.7-1.fc31.src.rpm # 0.7 (2019-09-12) - rework algorithms - check local filesize earlier: don't even check mirror if already downloaded - for partial local file output percentage already downloaded, otherwise show filesize - add --checksum to always do checksum when possible - add --run to run image in qemu-kvm if available - show dir for symlink: so one knows location - drop the branched 'devel' target (use release version number instead) - handle old dangling symlink too (after deleting iso)
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37714276
- Bump to 0.7.2, Package approved, in accord with Petr Schindler review. @Petr Schindler I would mark these as [-] as they are not really relevant to current SPEC: [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 2 files. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Thanks, Guys! Yep I will bump to the latest upstream release when importing. :-) https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/20334
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dl-fedora
FEDORA-2019-d513365307 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-d513365307
dl-fedora-0.7.2-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-d513365307
dl-fedora-0.7.2-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2019-ba27ff2fcd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-ba27ff2fcd
dl-fedora-0.7.2-1.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-ba27ff2fcd
dl-fedora-0.7.2-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.