Bug 1917958 - Review Request: xhost - X11 server host-based authorization tool
Summary: Review Request: xhost - X11 server host-based authorization tool
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: David Cantrell
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-01-19 18:08 UTC by Adam Jackson
Modified: 2023-09-15 00:58 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-03-10 20:21:04 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Adam Jackson 2021-01-19 18:08:45 UTC
Spec URL: https://ajax.fedorapeople.org/deagg/server-utils/xhost.spec
SRPM URL: https://ajax.fedorapeople.org/deagg/server-utils/xhost-1.0.7-1.fc32.src.rpm
Description: The xhost program is used to add and delete host names or user names to the list allowed to make connections to the X server.
Fedora Account System Username: ajax

Comment 1 David Cantrell 2021-02-25 19:12:28 UTC
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 =====

C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "ICU
     License", "FSF All Permissive License", "[generated file]", "FSF
     Unlimited License (with Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General
     Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public
     License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]",
     "Expat License [generated file]". 7 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/dcantrell/reviews/xhost/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: 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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 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.
[x]: 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.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: xhost-1.0.7-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          xhost-debuginfo-1.0.7-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          xhost-debugsource-1.0.7-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          xhost-1.0.7-1.fc35.src.rpm
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: xhost-debuginfo-1.0.7-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://www.x.org/pub/individual/app/xhost-1.0.7.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 93e619ee15471f576cfb30c663e18f5bc70aca577a63d2c2c03f006a7837c29a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93e619ee15471f576cfb30c663e18f5bc70aca577a63d2c2c03f006a7837c29a


Requires
--------
xhost (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libXmuu.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

xhost-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

xhost-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
xhost:
    xhost
    xhost(x86-64)

xhost-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    xhost-debuginfo
    xhost-debuginfo(x86-64)

xhost-debugsource:
    xhost-debugsource
    xhost-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn xhost-1.0.7-1.fc32.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Perl, R, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, Python, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 2 David Cantrell 2021-02-25 19:13:15 UTC
Why the %global for xhost?  Could just use %{version}.

Can the %if 0/%endif block be removed?

Comment 3 Adam Jackson 2021-03-10 20:21:04 UTC
Built in F34.

Comment 4 Red Hat Bugzilla 2023-09-15 00:58:37 UTC
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 500 days


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.