Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org//bpytop.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org//bpytop-1.0.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Resource monitor that shows usage and stats for processor, memory, disks, network and processes. Python port of bashtop. Features: - Easy to use, with a game inspired menu system. - Full mouse support, all buttons with a highlighted key is clickable and mouse scroll works in process list and menu boxes. - Fast and responsive UI with UP, DOWN keys process selection. - Function for showing detailed stats for selected process. - Ability to filter processes, multiple filters can be entered. - Easy switching between sorting options. - Send SIGTERM, SIGKILL, SIGINT to selected process. - UI menu for changing all config file options. - Auto scaling graph for network usage. - Shows message in menu if new version is available - Shows current read and write speeds for disks
https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/bpytop.spec https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/bpytop-1.0.2-2.fc33.src.rpm
https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/bpytop.spec https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/bpytop-1.0.3-1.fc33.src.rpm
Everything looks good! 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", "Apache License 2.0". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/zawertun/1866044-bpytop/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 20480 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 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). [?]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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: bpytop-1.0.3-1.fc33.noarch.rpm bpytop-1.0.3-1.fc33.src.rpm bpytop.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bashtop -> bash top, bash-top, backstop bpytop.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bpytop bpytop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bashtop -> bash top, bash-top, backstop 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. bpytop.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bashtop -> bash top, bash-top, backstop bpytop.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/aristocratos/bpytop <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> bpytop.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bpytop 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aristocratos/bpytop/archive/v1.0.3/bpytop-1.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f51c6e937031c354b1308311abdcb22158f8e3fcbc8cfef11980c816c61083b7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f51c6e937031c354b1308311abdcb22158f8e3fcbc8cfef11980c816c61083b7 Requires -------- bpytop (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python3 python3-psutil Provides -------- bpytop: bpytop Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 1866044 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, Perl, C/C++, R, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bpytop
FEDORA-2020-7c6ebb5810 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7c6ebb5810
FEDORA-2020-3c7962f36d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3c7962f36d
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-bf175b8e24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-bf175b8e24
FEDORA-2020-7c6ebb5810 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7c6ebb5810 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7c6ebb5810 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-bf175b8e24 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-bf175b8e24 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-3c7962f36d has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-3c7962f36d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3c7962f36d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-7c6ebb5810 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-3c7962f36d has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-bf175b8e24 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.