Spec URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/nq/nq.spec SRPM URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/nq/nq-0.4-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: The nq utility provides a very lightweight queuing system without requiring setup, maintenance, supervision or any long-running processes. Fedora Account System Username: xfgusta
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=77106159
Looking at the build log: > /usr/bin/make -O -j16 V=1 VERBOSE=1 > cc -g -Wall -O2 nq.c -o nq > cc -g -Wall -O2 fq.c -o fq Fedora's CFLAGS are not respected here. You can try patching the Makefile so it doesn't override them, or maybe just invoke gcc manually. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags The tq script requires that either tmux or screen are installed. This is not reflected in the package's Requires. (I guess it could be only a Recommends?) https://raw.githubusercontent.com/leahneukirchen/nq/v0.4/tq
Hi Artur. Thank you for the review. I updated the spec file: I added CFLAGS='%{build_cflags}' to override the makefile's one > %make_build CFLAGS='%{build_cflags}' and a boolean dependency to recommend tmux or screen > Recommends: (tmux or screen)
Spec URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/nq/nq.spec SRPM URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/nq/nq-0.4-1.fc34.src.rpm Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=77197223
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - While nq is clearly dedicated to the public domain in COPYING, there is also a link to http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/. I think the License field should therefore be “CC0” instead of “Public Domain”. This is possibly open to debate, so speak up if you disagree. - You can and should run the tests. Add: BuildRequires: /usr/bin/prove (which comes from perl-Test-Harness), and also: %check %make_build check - The timestamps are not preserved during installation. I have proposed an upstream PR (https://github.com/leahneukirchen/nq/pull/40) which would resolve this (given that %make_install sets INSTALL='/usr/bin/install -p'). Add: # Add an INSTALL variable to the Makefile # https://github.com/leahneukirchen/nq/pull/40 Patch0: %{url}/pull/40.patch and adjust %autosetup to %autosetup -p1 ===== 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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2013111-nq/licensecheck.txt Strictly speaking, I think the intended license is CC0. [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. [-]: 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: 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. [-]: 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. [!]: 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: nq-0.4-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm nq-debuginfo-0.4-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm nq-debugsource-0.4-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm nq-0.4-1.fc36.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: nq-debuginfo-0.4-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/leahneukirchen/nq/archive/v0.4/nq-0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 287d6700063b64cfa9db51df95e2a046736eb38c0d3b6e0af0a8e7da6df8880b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 287d6700063b64cfa9db51df95e2a046736eb38c0d3b6e0af0a8e7da6df8880b Requires -------- nq (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) nq-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nq-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- nq: nq nq(x86-64) nq-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) nq-debuginfo nq-debuginfo(x86-64) nq-debugsource: nq-debugsource nq-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2013111 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Python, PHP, Java, Perl, R, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Hi Ben. I am new to the packager group (about three weeks ago), but I should have paid more attention to this review request. Anyway, thanks for the review. I updated the spec file as follows: I agree with you about the license, but I would like to point out that the upstream also maintains a package for Void Linux, and its license field uses Public Domain [1], although CC0-1.0 is also valid [2]. However, I changed from Public Domain to CC0 as you suggested I added the BuildRequires perl(Test::Harness) and the "%make_build check" in the %check section I also added your patch Spec URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/nq/nq.spec SRPM URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/nq/nq-0.4-1.fc34.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=77620356 1. https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/blob/master/srcpkgs/nq/template#L8 2. https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/blob/master/Manual.md#mandatory-variables
> I agree with you about the license, but I would like to point out that the upstream also maintains a package for Void Linux, and its license field uses Public Domain [1], although CC0-1.0 is also valid [2]. However, I changed from Public Domain to CC0 as you suggested Speaking as not-a-lawyer: I think that since the CC0 license is a public domain dedication with added disclaimers and a fallback maximally-permissive license, the distinction is probably not very meaningful except in jurisdictions that don’t fully recognize public-domain dedications. You could always contact the upstream developer and ask what she thinks is correct. ---- I confirm that all of the issue I found are remedied, and the package is approved. Full re-review below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2013111-nq/re- review/2013111-nq/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. [-]: 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: 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: [x]: 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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: 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: nq-0.4-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm nq-debuginfo-0.4-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm nq-debugsource-0.4-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm nq-0.4-1.fc36.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: nq-debuginfo-0.4-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/leahneukirchen/nq/archive/v0.4/nq-0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 287d6700063b64cfa9db51df95e2a046736eb38c0d3b6e0af0a8e7da6df8880b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 287d6700063b64cfa9db51df95e2a046736eb38c0d3b6e0af0a8e7da6df8880b Requires -------- nq (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) nq-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nq-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- nq: nq nq(x86-64) nq-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) nq-debuginfo nq-debuginfo(x86-64) nq-debugsource: nq-debugsource nq-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2013111 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, Perl, Python, Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Also, congratulations on your new packager status.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nq
FEDORA-2021-ca3ee4584f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ca3ee4584f
FEDORA-2021-e87e64fd36 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e87e64fd36
FEDORA-2021-51070a48a3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-51070a48a3
FEDORA-2021-51070a48a3 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-2021-51070a48a3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-51070a48a3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-ca3ee4584f has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-ca3ee4584f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ca3ee4584f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-e87e64fd36 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-e87e64fd36 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e87e64fd36 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-ca3ee4584f has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-51070a48a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-e87e64fd36 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.