Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/grepcidr.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/grepcidr-2.0-1.src.rpm Description: The grepcidr utility can be used to filter a list of IP addresses against one or more Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) specifications. As with grep, there are options to invert matching and load patterns from a file. It is capable of efficiently processing large numbers of IPs and networks. Fedora Account System Username: robert
First issue: GPLv2 license contains wrong address. Both in COPYING and grepcidr.c. Other than that, I have found nothing important. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pihhan/fedora/review/2013866-grepcidr/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: 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 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. [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: grepcidr-2.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm grepcidr-debuginfo-2.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm grepcidr-debugsource-2.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm grepcidr-2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm grepcidr.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/grepcidr/COPYING 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: grepcidr-debuginfo-2.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- http://www.pc-tools.net/files/unix/grepcidr-2.0.tar.gz.sha512 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 083802bcf6be6c23bf8d9368c0129126fc6247864502099f1600258c26c60170 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 083802bcf6be6c23bf8d9368c0129126fc6247864502099f1600258c26c60170 http://www.pc-tools.net/files/unix/grepcidr-2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 61886a377dabf98797145c31f6ba95e6837b6786e70c932324b7d6176d50f7fb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 61886a377dabf98797145c31f6ba95e6837b6786e70c932324b7d6176d50f7fb Requires -------- grepcidr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) grepcidr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): grepcidr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- grepcidr: grepcidr grepcidr(x86-64) grepcidr-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) grepcidr-debuginfo grepcidr-debuginfo(x86-64) grepcidr-debugsource: grepcidr-debugsource grepcidr-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2013866 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Python, Ocaml, PHP, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Created attachment 1833618 [details] licensecheck.txt
Correct GPL address can be obtained from: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
I think GNU address is not blocking package acceptance. Please report it to the author anyway. But since there seems no public issue tracker, I wouldn't be able to check the report anyway. Granting review+, please proceed to fedpkg request-repo.
Thank you very much for the review! I've reported it to upstream while having you on Cc.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f6eba7284a has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f6eba7284a
FEDORA-2021-9211dbabf1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9211dbabf1
FEDORA-2021-2abd0b95e6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2abd0b95e6
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-cd4c4127db has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-cd4c4127db
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-cd4c4127db has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-cd4c4127db See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-2abd0b95e6 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-2021-2abd0b95e6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2abd0b95e6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f6eba7284a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f6eba7284a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-9211dbabf1 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-2021-9211dbabf1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9211dbabf1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-561d5a1eb1 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-2021-561d5a1eb1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-561d5a1eb1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-cd4c4127db has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-2abd0b95e6 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f6eba7284a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-9211dbabf1 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-561d5a1eb1 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.