Bug 1918034 - Review Request: xlsatoms - X11 atom list utility
Summary: Review Request: xlsatoms - X11 atom list utility
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
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: 1951346
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-01-19 21:39 UTC by Adam Jackson
Modified: 2021-04-24 20:13 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: xlsatoms-1.1.2-1.fc35
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-04-15 02:47:33 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
dcantrell: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Adam Jackson 2021-01-19 21:39:19 UTC
Spec URL: https://ajax.fedorapeople.org/deagg/utils/xlsatoms.spec
SRPM URL: https://ajax.fedorapeople.org/deagg/utils/xlsatoms-1.1.2-1.fc32.src.rpm
Description: xlsatoms lists the atom database from an X server.
Fedora Account System Username: ajax

Comment 1 David Cantrell 2021-03-02 20:18:01 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


Issues:
=======
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/


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

C/C++:
[-]: 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]: 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.
[!]: 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]: 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", "FSF All
     Permissive License", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "NTP License
     (legal disclaimer) [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]", "[generated file]". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/dcantrell/reviews/xlsatoms/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
[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.
[x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: xlsatoms-1.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          xlsatoms-debuginfo-1.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          xlsatoms-debugsource-1.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          xlsatoms-1.1.2-1.fc35.src.rpm
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: xlsatoms-debuginfo-1.1.2-1.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/xlsatoms-1.1.2.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 47e5dc7c3dbda6db2cf8c00cedac1722835c1550aa21cfdbc9ba83906694dea4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 47e5dc7c3dbda6db2cf8c00cedac1722835c1550aa21cfdbc9ba83906694dea4


Requires
--------
xlsatoms (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libxcb.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

xlsatoms-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

xlsatoms-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
xlsatoms:
    xlsatoms
    xlsatoms(x86-64)

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

xlsatoms-debugsource:
    xlsatoms-debugsource
    xlsatoms-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn xlsatoms-1.1.2-1.fc32.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Python, Perl, PHP, Haskell, Java, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 2 David Cantrell 2021-03-02 20:18:33 UTC
Need %license for COPYING in %files.
Add BuildRequires: gcc

Comment 3 Adam Jackson 2021-03-10 20:21:14 UTC
Built in F34.

Comment 4 David Cantrell 2021-03-17 02:01:45 UTC
The revised spec file at https://ajax.fedorapeople.org/deagg/utils/xlsatoms.spec complies with the packaging guidelines, approved.

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2021-04-14 13:17:01 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xlsatoms

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2021-04-20 01:55:25 UTC
FEDORA-2021-d0ef533054 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d0ef533054

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2021-04-24 20:13:56 UTC
FEDORA-2021-d0ef533054 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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.