Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/iotools/iotools.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/iotools/iotools-1.7~pre0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: The iotools package provides a set of simple command line tools which allow access to hardware device registers. Supported register interfaces include PCI, IO, memory mapped IO, SMBus, CPUID, and MSR. Also included are some utilities which allow for simple arithmetic, logical, and other operations. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=72794256
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - I agree with the choice of not using the `make install` target of upstream, it looks like it adds a lot of very generically named symlinks to sbin. However, there should probably be a comment in the %install section detailing why the make install target isn't used. - I presume you feel that creating a man-page for this executable is out of scope for your packaging efforts? - Should we add a note why this particular fork was chosen as the upstream? I ask only since it seems to not be the "original" repo. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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. I did a simple test just using cpu_list subcommand [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]: 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: 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: iotools-1.7~pre0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm iotools-debuginfo-1.7~pre0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm iotools-debugsource-1.7~pre0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm iotools-1.7~pre0-1.fc35.src.rpm iotools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iotools iotools.src:38: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: iotools-debuginfo-1.7~pre0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aaron-sierra/iotools/archive/v1.7pre0/iotools-1.7pre0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5b31af5b947d33b7b8d079a5ad091af1b013e8509a1230acbe0531e18af11588 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5b31af5b947d33b7b8d079a5ad091af1b013e8509a1230acbe0531e18af11588 Requires -------- iotools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) iotools-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): iotools-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- iotools: iotools iotools(x86-64) iotools-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) iotools-debuginfo iotools-debuginfo(x86-64) iotools-debugsource: iotools-debugsource iotools-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1986613 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP, R, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review, I've updated the package to add the clarifying comments as requested. Regarding the manpage: I don't generally write man pages from scratch for packages, but I'd be happy to include one if you (or someone else) wanted to contribute it.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - No issues, looks good to me! 👍 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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: 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: iotools-1.7~pre0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm iotools-debuginfo-1.7~pre0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm iotools-debugsource-1.7~pre0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm iotools-1.7~pre0-1.fc35.src.rpm iotools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iotools iotools.src:41: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: iotools-debuginfo-1.7~pre0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aaron-sierra/iotools/archive/v1.7pre0/iotools-1.7pre0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5b31af5b947d33b7b8d079a5ad091af1b013e8509a1230acbe0531e18af11588 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5b31af5b947d33b7b8d079a5ad091af1b013e8509a1230acbe0531e18af11588 Requires -------- iotools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) iotools-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): iotools-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- iotools: iotools iotools(x86-64) iotools-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) iotools-debuginfo iotools-debuginfo(x86-64) iotools-debugsource: iotools-debugsource iotools-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1986613 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, R, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, Java, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo iotools 1986613 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36282
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/iotools
FEDORA-2021-15a8abf296 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-15a8abf296
FEDORA-2021-15a8abf296 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-15a8abf296 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-15a8abf296 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-15a8abf296 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.