Bug 1996107 - Review Request: xmppc - A command-line interface (CLI) XMPP Client
Summary: Review Request: xmppc - A command-line interface (CLI) XMPP Client
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Petr Menšík
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 1994501
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2021-08-20 14:56 UTC by Matthieu Saulnier
Modified: 2021-09-30 00:52 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2021-09-30 00:52:24 UTC
Type: ---
pemensik: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Matthieu Saulnier 2021-08-20 14:56:28 UTC
Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/xmppc.spec
SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/xmppc-0.1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
Description: xmppc is a XMPP command line interface client. It's written in C and
is using the xmpp library libstrophe.

Fedora Account System Username: fantom

Comment 1 Matthieu Saulnier 2021-08-20 14:58:43 UTC
xmppc requires libstrophe which is currently in review RHBZ#1994501

Comment 2 Matthieu Saulnier 2021-08-20 14:59:37 UTC
copr build:
rawhide/f34/f33: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fantom/xmppc/build/2531144/

Comment 3 Petr Menšík 2021-08-24 10:40:39 UTC
Package Review

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

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

[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.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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", "GNU General Public License", "GNU
     General Public License v3.0 or later". 8 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
[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
[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.
[x]: 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[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.

Checking: xmppc-0.1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
xmppc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xmpp -> exempt
xmppc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libstrophe -> lib strophe, lib-strophe, apostrophe
xmppc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xmpp -> exempt
xmppc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libstrophe -> lib strophe, lib-strophe, apostrophe
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
Checking: xmppc-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Source checksums
https://codeberg.org/Anoxinon_e.V./xmppc/archive/0.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 98d68deb57924e5ed06613d8b275fb0bf98aab822fb590fe8d9894410a8544ee
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 98d68deb57924e5ed06613d8b275fb0bf98aab822fb590fe8d9894410a8544ee

xmppc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

xmppc-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

xmppc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

xmppc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):





AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
  AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: xmppc/configure.ac:10

Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1996107 -L /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/1994501-libstrophe/lib
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python, Perl, R, fonts, Java, PHP, Haskell

Built with local dependencies:

Could not find anything, why not pass the review straight away. Great job, thank you!

Continue forward with fedpkg request-repo request.

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2021-08-25 16:32:04 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xmppc

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2021-09-25 13:13:58 UTC
FEDORA-2021-2eb2ee1821 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2eb2ee1821

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2021-09-26 00:57:50 UTC
FEDORA-2021-2eb2ee1821 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-2021-2eb2ee1821 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2eb2ee1821

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

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2021-09-30 00:52:24 UTC
FEDORA-2021-2eb2ee1821 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 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.