Bug 2055602 - Review Request: colortest - Bash script to display terminal colors
Summary: Review Request: colortest - Bash script to display terminal colors
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-02-17 10:58 UTC by glaringgibbon
Modified: 2025-06-27 02:40 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 1 Jakub Kadlčík 2022-02-17 14:00:21 UTC
Thank you for the package!
Overall, it looks good, but I think a couple of things should be fixed.


> * Tue Feb 15 2022 glaringgibbon <glaringgibbon>  - 3.0.4-1

I am not sure if it is an enforced policy or not but it is common to
put a full name into the changelog entries. See the guidelines for an
example
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs 


> Version:        3.0.4
> Source0:        https://github.com/pablopunk/%{name}/archive/refs/heads/master.zip

You are packaging 3.0.4 version, which is what I would expect but the
problem is that you are using different a source tarball. If you look at
https://github.com/pablopunk/colortest/commits/master
you can see that since the actual 3.0.4 version, multiple commits 
(9 if I count correctly) have happened.

Also, packaging sources from the `master` branch is problematic in
another way - each time we would rebuild the package, the sources
tarball could be different (if the author pushed some changes in the
meantime).

You actually want to download the Source0 like this
%{URL}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags

I understand why you needed to package `master` instead of the actual
version, which is the added LICENSE file. You will probably have to ask
upstream to release 3.0.5 version.


A few really nitpicky notes - There are two blank lines between
sections but between %files and %changelog, there is just one. Also
between the email in the changelog and the dash, there is a double space.


Otherwise, I tried the package and it works, so cheers!

Comment 2 Michel Lind 2022-02-21 00:28:38 UTC
Will sponsor once the review is done

Comment 3 Jakub Kadlčík 2022-10-29 21:18:04 UTC
Thank you very much Michael,
I became a sponsor in the meantime as well.

But we shall first see how the review turns out.

Comment 4 Package Review 2023-10-30 00:45:27 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

Comment 5 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-11-01 10:00:51 UTC
I am interested in reviewing this ticket but there is no response from the contributor.

Comment 6 Package Review 2024-11-01 00:45:30 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

Comment 7 Package Review 2024-12-02 00:45:33 UTC
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.

Comment 8 andreyesquivel.dev 2025-06-24 21:14:49 UTC
Hello team, 

This is my mock review for Fedora sponsorship process.

Spec file observations:

    Version: 3.0.4 (note that 3.0.5 is available, you should consider updating to the latest version)

    Summary: Quickly show all your terminal colours
    Currently, uses "colours". You must change to "colors." (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/)  

    Source0:
    Currently, points to the master branch ZIP: https://github.com/pablopunk/%{name}/archive/refs/heads/master.zip

    Consider replacing it with the tarball URL format: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags)

%prep section:
Consider using: %autosetup -n -p0 (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_autosetup)

%install section:
Consider specifying the exact filename: install -m 0755 %{name} %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name} (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/RPMMacros/)

Consider creating a manpage using the tool help2man to avoid "W: no-manual-page-for-binary colortest" during rpmlint test (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages). This will also improve package quality.

I hope this review is helpful for other reviewers. I am available to assist with any further questions or clarifications. Feedback is always welcome.

Comment 9 Benson Muite 2025-06-26 11:15:33 UTC
The macro %{name}  in the install step will get substituted, so this is ok. It
is a matter of style.

-p0  does not hurt, but is not needed as there are no patches.

Comment 10 andreyesquivel.dev 2025-06-26 13:48:18 UTC
Hello, 

As part of my Fedora packager sponsorship process, this is my mock review using the original .spec and .src.rpm files submitted in this Bugzilla.

Below is the full output from fedora-review. I have manually checked the following areas:

    License: [ ] Needs correction: licensecheck found unknown entries and some files with unknown license. See detailed output in licensecheck.txt.

    Summary: [ ] Contains British English spelling “colours” instead of American English “colors,” causing rpmlint spelling errors.

    Source URL: [ ] Points to the master branch ZIP archive instead of a tagged tarball release, causing checksum mismatches.

    Changelog: [ ] Not in prescribed format. (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/manual-changelog/) 

    Manual Page: [ ] Missing man page for the binary, recommended to add with help2man to avoid rpmlint warning.

    Overall Build: [x] Builds cleanly in mock.

    Rpmlint: [x] Minor warnings present but no blocking errors.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
  /home/andreyesquivel/secondmock/review-colortest/diff.txt
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/


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

Generic:
[ ]: 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/andreyesquivel/secondmock/review-
     colortest/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 1399 bytes in 1 files.
[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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Bad spec filename: /home/andreyesquivel/secondmock/review-
     colortest/srpm-unpacked/colortest.spec
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: colortest-3.0.4-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          colortest-3.0.4-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp8q6g40uc')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', 'Summary(en_US) colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours')
colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', '%description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours')
colortest.src: E: spelling-error ('colours', 'Summary(en_US) colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours')
colortest.src: E: spelling-error ('colours', '%description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours')
colortest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary colortest
colortest.spec: W: no-%check-section
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', 'Summary(en_US) colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours')
colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', '%description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours')
colortest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary colortest
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pablopunk/colortest/archive/refs/heads/master.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4f8715ec7cb9737d70e29d4e17a1fdac178c078f90f73f7e0c4d454b2438ec8d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ecb72c0eab43dbc03fcfbc620774e187b63fa0de03b938637ce48d12ac6a87eb
diff -r also reports differences


Requires
--------
colortest (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    bash



Provides
--------
colortest:
    colortest



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n colortest
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, PHP, C/C++, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 11 andreyesquivel.dev 2025-06-27 02:40:17 UTC
This comment provides an updated and detailed package review, including further analysis and recommendations based on the previous check performed.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
  /home/andreyesquivel/secondmock/review-colortest/diff.txt
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/


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

Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
licensecheck detected 4 files with unknown license.

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/andreyesquivel/secondmock/review-
     colortest/licensecheck.txt

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
The original source shared in this ticket contains a zip file. 

[-]: 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.
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
You must use American English. Colours → Colors.

[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[!]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 1399 bytes in 1 files.
[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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
There is a newer upstream version. (see https://github.com/pablopunk/colortest/releases/tag/3.0.5)

[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
Upstream does not provide GPG signatures for source archives.

[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
Compilation tested on x86_64 only.

[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Consider adding a %check section.  

[ ]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Bad spec filename: /home/andreyesquivel/secondmock/review-
     colortest/srpm-unpacked/colortest.spec
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: colortest-3.0.4-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          colortest-3.0.4-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp8q6g40uc')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', 'Summary(en_US) colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours')
colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', '%description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours')
colortest.src: E: spelling-error ('colours', 'Summary(en_US) colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours')
colortest.src: E: spelling-error ('colours', '%description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours')
colortest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary colortest
colortest.spec: W: no-%check-section
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', 'Summary(en_US) colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours')
colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', '%description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours')
colortest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary colortest
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pablopunk/colortest/archive/refs/heads/master.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4f8715ec7cb9737d70e29d4e17a1fdac178c078f90f73f7e0c4d454b2438ec8d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ecb72c0eab43dbc03fcfbc620774e187b63fa0de03b938637ce48d12ac6a87eb
diff -r also reports differences


Requires
--------
colortest (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    bash



Provides
--------
colortest:
    colortest



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n colortest
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, PHP, C/C++, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.