Bug 1785541 - Review Request: git-filter-repo - Quickly rewrite git repository history (git-filter-branch replacement)
Summary: Review Request: git-filter-repo - Quickly rewrite git repository history (git...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Sahana Prasad
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-12-20 07:46 UTC by Andreas Schneider
Modified: 2020-01-17 05:06 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-01-17 05:06:53 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
sahana: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Andreas Schneider 2019-12-20 07:46:51 UTC
Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/git-filter-repo/git-filter-repo.spec
SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/git-filter-repo/git-filter-repo-2.24.0-1.fc31.src.rpm
Description: git filter-repo is a versatile tool for rewriting history, which includes capabilities not found anywhere else. It roughly falls into the same space of tool as git filter-branch but without the capitulation-inducing poor performance, with far more capabilities, and with a design that scales usability-wise beyond trivial rewriting cases.
Fedora Account System Username: asn

Comment 1 Sahana Prasad 2019-12-20 15:02:52 UTC
Package Review
==============

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



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

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: "*No copyright* Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "Expat
     License", "GPL (v2 or later)". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/sprasad/Project_libssh/libssh-
     mirror/FedoraReview/1785541-git-filter-repo/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 102400 bytes in 8 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]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: git-filter-repo-2.24.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
          git-filter-repo-2.24.0-1.fc32.src.rpm
git-filter-repo.src: W: strange-permission git-filter-repo-2.24.0.tar.xz 600
git-filter-repo.src: W: strange-permission git-filter-repo.spec 600
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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").
git-filter-repo.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo/releases/download/v2.24.0/git-filter-repo-2.24.0.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 92188d3c44b9ff0dd40dfeed72859e0a088f775c12fb24c4e3e27a8064cfcc84
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 92188d3c44b9ff0dd40dfeed72859e0a088f775c12fb24c4e3e27a8064cfcc84


Requires
--------
git-filter-repo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    git



Provides
--------
git-filter-repo:
    git-filter-repo



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/sprasad/Project_libssh/libssh-mirror/FedoraReview/1785541-git-filter-repo/srpm/git-filter-repo.spec	2019-12-20 13:33:02.177123348 +0100
+++ /home/sprasad/Project_libssh/libssh-mirror/FedoraReview/1785541-git-filter-repo/srpm-unpacked/git-filter-repo.spec	2019-12-20 08:43:44.000000000 +0100
@@ -4,5 +4,5 @@
 Version:        2.24.0
 Release:        1%{?dist}
-Summary:        Quickly rewrite git repository history (git- filter-branch replacement)
+Summary:        Quickly rewrite git repository history (git-filter-branch replacement)
 License:        MIT
 Group:          Development/Tools/Version Control


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1785541
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, fonts, Java, R, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 3 Sahana Prasad 2020-01-02 14:44:12 UTC
===== 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: "*No copyright* Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "Expat
     License", "GPL (v2 or later)". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/sprasad/Project_libssh/libssh-
     mirror/FedoraReview/review-git-filter-repo/licensecheck.txt

[?]: 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

[?]: 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]: 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 102400 bytes in 8 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[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
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.

[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.

you could try to use use -p to preserve timestamps.

[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: git-filter-repo-2.24.0-2.fc32.noarch.rpm
          git-filter-repo-2.24.0-2.fc32.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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").
git-filter-repo.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

This warning can be ignored. The URL is correct and reachable.

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo/releases/download/v2.24.0/git-filter-repo-2.24.0.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 92188d3c44b9ff0dd40dfeed72859e0a088f775c12fb24c4e3e27a8064cfcc84
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 92188d3c44b9ff0dd40dfeed72859e0a088f775c12fb24c4e3e27a8064cfcc84


Requires
--------
git-filter-repo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    git



Provides
--------
git-filter-repo:
    git-filter-repo

Looks good and package is approved.

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-01-07 14:05:47 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/git-filter-repo

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2020-01-09 01:07:39 UTC
git-filter-repo-2.24.0-2.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-2020-43eb2cd103

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2020-01-17 05:06:53 UTC
git-filter-repo-2.24.0-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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.