Spec URL: https://angband.pl/tmp/fedora/topline.spec SRPM URL: https://angband.pl/tmp/fedora/topline-0.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: per-core/NUMA CPU and disk utilization plain-text grapher Fedora Account System Username: kilobyte This tool provides a convenient way to observe system load patterns on many-core machines, especially remote ones.
Hi Adam, Here are some minor issues, apart from them, it seems fine. Smaller description: "Also, please make sure that there are no lines in the description longer than 80 characters." from https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description There's a "dot" in the middle of the description. I am not sure if there's a purpose for that. rpmlint complains about "GPL-2+noA", here is the list of licenses https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses. All rpmlint warnings: Rpmlint ------- Checking: topline-0.2-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm topline-debuginfo-0.2-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm topline-debugsource-0.2-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm topline-0.2-1.fc32.src.rpm topline.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) grapher -> graphed, graph er, graph-er topline.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C per-core/NUMA CPU and disk utilization plain-text grapher topline.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2+noA topline.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/topline.1.gz topline-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2+noA topline-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2+noA topline.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) grapher -> graphed, graph er, graph-er topline.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C per-core/NUMA CPU and disk utilization plain-text grapher topline.src: W: invalid-license GPL-2+noA 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Another thing, I checked with my mentor, and it seems that as GPL-2+noA cannot be found Licensing#SoftwareLicenses[1]. So, in this case, we'll have to block the legal blocker bug and let Fedora legal look at it and say if it's ok to include.
That's an odd license statement, but for the purposes of Fedora, just mark it as "License: GPLv2+". Lifting FE-Legal.
Issues addressed. I've also updated to the newest upstream version. Spec URL: https://angband.pl/tmp/fedora/topline.spec SRPM URL: https://angband.pl/tmp/fedora/topline-0.3-1.fc32.src.rpm
It seems almost all good. Most of the complaints from fedora-review are SHOULDs. The one that brought my attention is that there is no check/testing section. We could have one, but it's up to you. A scratch build with koji ran fine, it seems all good https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41893328. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ok]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ok]: 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ok]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ok]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [ok]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ok]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ok]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ok]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ok]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ok]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [n/a]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [n/a]: Development files must be in a -devel package [n/a]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ok]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directorynames). [ok]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ok]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ok]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ok]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ok]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ok]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [n/a]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ok]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ok]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ok]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [ok]: 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]: 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: [ok]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ok]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [probably fine]: Package functions as described. [ok]: Latest version is packaged. [ok]: 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. [ok]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: topline-0.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm topline-debuginfo-0.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm topline-debugsource-0.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm topline-0.3-1.fc33.src.rpm topline.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) grapher -> graphed, graph er, graph-er topline.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) grapher -> graphed, graph er, graph-er 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: topline-debuginfo-0.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 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.utf8" 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.utf8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). topline.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) grapher -> graphed, graph er, graph-er topline.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kilobyte/topline <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> topline-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kilobyte/topline <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> topline-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kilobyte/topline <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
It's unobvious how to test a package that produces different output on every machine, based on the state of the entire system. Only item I've found so far is checking if a given architecture's /proc and /sys files can be successfully parsed -- but that's a test that's very unlikely to fail, considering Linux kernel's policy of "we don't break userspace". For this reason, the package has no tests yet.
Sounds good to me. Thanks, Adam.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/topline
In rawhide.