Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rhbzquery/rhbzquery.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rhbzquery/rhbzquery-0.3-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: A CLI tool for creating bugzilla queries for bugzilla.redhat.com. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57199852
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rhbzquery/rhbzquery.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rhbzquery/rhbzquery-0.4-1.fc33.src.rpm update to 0.4 release
Overall this is a well put together package and I have no complaints about the organization of files and the specfile itself. I have one complaint and one suggestion: 1. Complaint: This thing really needs a man-page, or alternatively an easy way to setup a .bugzillarc. I've never used a .bugzillarc and it took flexing my google-fu to find that a) it's an INI-style file and b) needs a section with a "user" field like so: [bugzilla.redhat.com] user=williams While I'd prefer to see a man page, I could live with addition information in Readme.md. 2. Suggestion: I'd add SPDX License tags to your source files to clearly indicate that the file is covered under the BSD-3-Clause license: -- SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause more info at: https://spdx.dev/ids Other than that I think it looks good. Clark ================================================================== 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/williams/fedora/package- reviews/1906493-rhbzquery/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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 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: [x]: 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. [-]: 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: rhbzquery-0.4-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm rhbzquery-0.4-1.fc34.src.rpm rhbzquery.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugzilla -> Bugzilla, ChatZilla rhbzquery.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US redhat -> red hat, red-hat, hatred rhbzquery.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rhbzquery rhbzquery.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugzilla -> Bugzilla, ChatZilla rhbzquery.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US redhat -> red hat, red-hat, hatred 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rhbzquery.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugzilla -> Bugzilla, ChatZilla rhbzquery.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US redhat -> red hat, red-hat, hatred rhbzquery.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rhbzquery 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/rhbzquery-0.4/rhbzquery-0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8e0f19795c81702728aa4f980f0d6fcb1f57956ead96a123627a0c8281d2842a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8e0f19795c81702728aa4f980f0d6fcb1f57956ead96a123627a0c8281d2842a Requires -------- rhbzquery (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) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- rhbzquery: rhbzquery rhbzquery(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1906493 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Haskell, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, C/C++, Ruby, Ocaml, Perl, Java, R, PHP, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for reviewing, Clark Let me check on (1): I intended that ~/.bugzillarc be generated if missing (for --mine) (but since I already had the config from (`bugzilla login` and fbrnch) I may need to do more to setup the file correctly, thanks for testing it. (2) is a good idea let me try to do in the next version.
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #3) > Let me check on (1): I intended that ~/.bugzillarc be generated if missing > (for --mine) (but since I already had the config from (`bugzilla login` and fbrnch) > I may need to do more to setup the file correctly, thanks for testing it. I think this was basically a bug: I had forgotten to turn off stdout buffering so the bz userid prompt never appears. (In reply to Clark Williams from comment #2) > While I'd prefer to see a man page, I could live with addition > information in Readme.md. For now let me add a simple manpage generated with help2man. > 2. Suggestion: I'd add SPDX License tags to your source files to > clearly indicate that the file is covered under the BSD-3-Clause > license: Thanks for this - I am adding SPDX tags to 0.4.1 (I also forgot to mention here the copr repo: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/petersen/rhbzquery/)
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rhbzquery/rhbzquery.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rhbzquery/rhbzquery-0.4.1-1.fc33.src.rpm - change license from BSD to GPLv2+ - set no stdout buffering (#1906493) - generate basic manpage with help2man Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57620613
Thanks Jens, sorry it took me a while to get back to this. I like the changes so I'll set the status to accept. Nice job! Clark
Thanks a lot, Clark, appreciate the helpful review and feedback.
Thank you for the review, Clark https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/31376
BTW, I'm impressed with Haskell. Probably won't make me stop using LISP, but impressive nonetheless :).
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rhbzquery
(In reply to Clark Williams from comment #9) > BTW, I'm impressed with Haskell. Probably won't make me stop using LISP, but > impressive nonetheless :). Cool that's nice to hear :-) Which Lisp do you use btw?
I was very happy that rhbzquery got a mention in the latest Fedora Magazine Copr projects round-up! https://fedoramagazine.org/4-cool-new-projects-to-try-in-copr-from-december/
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #11) > (In reply to Clark Williams from comment #9) > > BTW, I'm impressed with Haskell. Probably won't make me stop using LISP, but > > impressive nonetheless :). > > Cool that's nice to hear :-) > > Which Lisp do you use btw? Mostly Emacs Lisp :). I have fooled with Steel Bay Common Lisp (sbcl) and more Scheme's than I can count (starting back in the R3RS days). But really, I'm a C programmer.
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #12) > I was very happy that rhbzquery got a mention in the latest Fedora Magazine > Copr projects round-up! > > https://fedoramagazine.org/4-cool-new-projects-to-try-in-copr-from-december/ I saw that! They'd better hurry if they want to try it in copr :)
FEDORA-2020-cd124c8c48 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cd124c8c48
(In reply to Clark Williams from comment #13) > Mostly Emacs Lisp :). I have fooled with Steel Bay Common Lisp (sbcl) and > more Scheme's than I can count (starting back in the R3RS days). I see nice, I also started out from Emacs Lisp. (In reply to Clark Williams from comment #14) > I saw that! They'd better hurry if they want to try it in copr :) Yeah, hahaha :-)
FEDORA-2020-2f738660aa has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2f738660aa
FEDORA-2020-2f738660aa has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-2f738660aa \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2f738660aa See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-cd124c8c48 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-cd124c8c48 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cd124c8c48 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-2f738660aa has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-cd124c8c48 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.