Bug 1980196 - Review Request: golang-github-schollz-croc - Easily and securely send things from one computer to another
Summary: Review Request: golang-github-schollz-croc - Easily and securely send things ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Hirotaka Wakabayashi
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1979785 1979787 1979790 1979791 1979792 1979793 1980193
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-07-08 04:37 UTC by Davide Cavalca
Modified: 2022-03-26 15:07 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-03-02 16:27:30 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
hiwkby: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Davide Cavalca 2021-07-08 04:37:33 UTC
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-croc/golang-github-schollz-croc.spec
SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-croc/golang-github-schollz-croc-9.2.0-1.fc35.src.rpm

Description:

croc is a tool that allows any two computers to simply and securely transfer
files and folders.

Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca

Comment 2 Hirotaka Wakabayashi 2022-02-27 05:59:16 UTC
Koji scratch build(success!)
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83402251

Comment 3 Hirotaka Wakabayashi 2022-02-27 08:18:04 UTC
Hello Davide, one rpmlint error. Please check my review.

Regards,
Hirotaka


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- One rpmlint error.
  You should set the correct mode if this completion file is an
  executable bash script. If not, we should ignore this error.
  ```
  croc.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/croc 644 /bin/bash
  ```
  Please see:
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_use_rpmlint

===== 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of 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 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]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[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
-------
$ rpmlint ~/dev/packages/RPMS/noarch/golang-github-schollz-croc-devel-9.5.2-1.fc37.noarch.rpm 
============================================================================ rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

golang-github-schollz-croc-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/croc/.goipath
golang-github-schollz-croc-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/croc/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-croc-devel/README.md
============================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ============================================

$ rpmlint ~/dev/packages/RPMS/x86_64/croc-9.5.2-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm 
============================================================================ rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

croc.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/croc 644 /bin/bash
croc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary croc
============================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s ============================================

$ rpmlint golang-github-schollz-croc-9.5.2-1.fc37.src.rpm 
============================================================================ rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

============================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ============================================


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/schollz/croc/archive/v9.5.2/croc-9.5.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9fcbb82fa78122b0a2279fe9b4c4c7ff6af7b0599f275c04481ad5ed162d2952
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9fcbb82fa78122b0a2279fe9b4c4c7ff6af7b0599f275c04481ad5ed162d2952


Requires
--------
croc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)

golang-github-schollz-croc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    go-filesystem
    golang(github.com/cespare/xxhash)
    golang(github.com/denisbrodbeck/machineid)
    golang(github.com/kalafut/imohash)
    golang(github.com/schollz/cli/v2)
    golang(github.com/schollz/logger)
    golang(github.com/schollz/mnemonicode)
    golang(github.com/schollz/pake/v3)
    golang(github.com/schollz/peerdiscovery)
    golang(github.com/schollz/progressbar/v3)
    golang(golang.org/x/crypto/argon2)
    golang(golang.org/x/crypto/chacha20poly1305)
    golang(golang.org/x/crypto/pbkdf2)
    golang(golang.org/x/net/proxy)
    golang(golang.org/x/time/rate)



Provides
--------
croc:
    croc
    croc(x86-64)

golang-github-schollz-croc-devel:
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/cli)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/comm)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/compress)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/croc)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/crypt)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/message)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/models)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/tcp)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/utils)
    golang-github-schollz-croc-devel
    golang-ipath(github.com/schollz/croc)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1980196
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Perl, Java, C/C++, fonts, PHP, Python, Haskell, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 5 Hirotaka Wakabayashi 2022-02-28 13:49:53 UTC
Hello Davide, package approved! :)

Regards,
Hirotaka



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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of 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 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]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[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
-------
$ rpmlint croc-9.5.2-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm 
================================= rpmlint session starts ================================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

croc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary croc
== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =

$ rpmlint golang-github-schollz-croc-9.5.2-1.fc37.src.rpm
================================= rpmlint session starts ================================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s =

$ rpmlint golang-github-schollz-croc-devel-9.5.2-1.fc37.noarch.rpm
================================= rpmlint session starts ================================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

golang-github-schollz-croc-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/croc/.goipath
golang-github-schollz-croc-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/croc/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-croc-devel/README.md
== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s =



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/schollz/croc/archive/v9.5.2/croc-9.5.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9fcbb82fa78122b0a2279fe9b4c4c7ff6af7b0599f275c04481ad5ed162d2952
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9fcbb82fa78122b0a2279fe9b4c4c7ff6af7b0599f275c04481ad5ed162d2952


Requires
--------
croc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)

golang-github-schollz-croc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    go-filesystem
    golang(github.com/cespare/xxhash)
    golang(github.com/denisbrodbeck/machineid)
    golang(github.com/kalafut/imohash)
    golang(github.com/schollz/cli/v2)
    golang(github.com/schollz/logger)
    golang(github.com/schollz/mnemonicode)
    golang(github.com/schollz/pake/v3)
    golang(github.com/schollz/peerdiscovery)
    golang(github.com/schollz/progressbar/v3)
    golang(golang.org/x/crypto/argon2)
    golang(golang.org/x/crypto/chacha20poly1305)
    golang(golang.org/x/crypto/pbkdf2)
    golang(golang.org/x/net/proxy)
    golang(golang.org/x/time/rate)

golang-github-schollz-croc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
croc:
    croc
    croc(x86-64)

golang-github-schollz-croc-devel:
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/cli)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/comm)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/compress)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/croc)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/crypt)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/message)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/models)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/tcp)
    golang(github.com/schollz/croc/src/utils)
    golang-github-schollz-croc-devel
    golang-ipath(github.com/schollz/croc)

golang-github-schollz-croc-debugsource:
    golang-github-schollz-croc-debugsource
    golang-github-schollz-croc-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1980196
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, R, Haskell, Python, PHP, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 6 Davide Cavalca 2022-03-01 17:22:53 UTC
Thanks!

$ fedpkg request-repo golang-github-schollz-croc 1980196
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/42631

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-03-02 14:52:36 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-schollz-croc

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2022-03-02 16:24:49 UTC
FEDORA-2022-98324d9bc0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-98324d9bc0

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2022-03-02 16:27:30 UTC
FEDORA-2022-98324d9bc0 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2022-03-02 17:24:00 UTC
FEDORA-2022-d20766f5b2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d20766f5b2

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2022-03-02 18:37:10 UTC
FEDORA-2022-550d60bc31 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-550d60bc31

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2022-03-02 19:43:49 UTC
FEDORA-2022-d20766f5b2 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-d20766f5b2 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d20766f5b2

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2022-03-03 16:38:52 UTC
FEDORA-2022-550d60bc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-550d60bc31 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-550d60bc31

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2022-03-11 14:43:48 UTC
FEDORA-2022-550d60bc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2022-03-26 15:07:12 UTC
FEDORA-2022-d20766f5b2 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 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.