Bug 2103073 - Review Request: vim-fugitive-gitlab - GitLab support for vim-fugitive plugin
Summary: Review Request: vim-fugitive-gitlab - GitLab support for vim-fugitive plugin
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Maxwell G
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-07-01 11:31 UTC by Pavel Raiskup
Modified: 2022-09-15 02:52 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-09-06 18:32:45 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
maxwell: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Pavel Raiskup 2022-07-01 11:31:20 UTC
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/vim-fugitive-gitlab/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04589794-vim-fugitive-gitlab/vim-fugitive-gitlab.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/vim-fugitive-gitlab/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04589794-vim-fugitive-gitlab/vim-fugitive-gitlab-0-1.20220701git85d4e1.fc37.src.rpm
Description:
GitLab support for vim-fugitive plugin.  Enables :Gbrowse from fugitive.vim to
open GitLab URLs.  Sets up :Git to use hub if installed rather than git (when
available).  In commit messages, GitHub issues, issue URLs, and collaborators
can be omni-completed (<C-X><C-O>, see :help compl-omni).

Fedora Account System Username: praiskup

Comment 3 Maxwell G 2022-07-06 15:50:02 UTC
Re the versioning: The Packaging Guidelines recommend that, when packaging git snapshots, you put the commit information into the Version field as opposed to the release field. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots . In this case, your Version field could be `0~%{posttag}`, and your Release field would just be `Release: 1%{?dist}` (generally, the Release of newly imported packages should start at 1).

Comment 5 Maxwell G 2022-08-13 17:38:22 UTC
Sorry for taking so long to get back to this. I can complete the review.

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

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

==== Issues ====

```
%changelog
* Wed Jul 06 2022 Pavel Raiskup <praiskup> - 0~20220701gitb73a8e-3
- fix versioning, put posttag into the Version

* Sun Jul 03 2022 Pavel Raiskup <praiskup> - 0-2.20220701git85d4e1
- upstream shipped the LICENSE file (MIT)
- fix typo in description

* Fri Jul 01 2022 Pavel Raiskup <praiskup> - 0-1.20220701git85d4e1
- initial packaging, inspiration from vim-rhubarb.spec
```

This no longer sorts properly. You should remove the previous entries.

```
$ rpmdev-vercmp 0-2.20220701git85d4e1 0~20220701gitb73a8e-3
0-2.20220701git85d4e1 > 0~20220701gitb73a8e-3
```

```
install -p -m 0644 doc/fugitive-gitlab.txt %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/doc
install -p -m 0644 plugin/gitlab.vim %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/plugin
for filename in api fugitive omnifunc utils; do
    install -p -m 0644 autoload/gitlab/$filename.vim %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/autoload/gitlab
done
```

This seems unnecessarily convoluted. Why don't you just use `cp -rp`to copy the directories that you need?

> Requires: vim-common

This should only depend on vim-filesystem.




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

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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/gotmax/Sync/git-
     repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/vim-fugitive-gitlab/vim-
     fugitive-gitlab/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
See note above about sorting
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
See note above about vim-common.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 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.
[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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
NOTE: noarch package
[!]: %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]: 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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
vim-fugitive-gitlab.spec: W: no-%build-section
This is fine. You can include a blank build section if you'd like.


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/shumphrey/fugitive-gitlab.vim/archive/b73a8e97de95d26280082abb7f51465a3d3b239e/fugitive-gitlab.vim-b73a8e97de95d26280082abb7f51465a3d3b239e.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5c60b632d4a883d39ecdd079e32437a26148c26a56f0cef4a8b0ae295a4b970a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5c60b632d4a883d39ecdd079e32437a26148c26a56f0cef4a8b0ae295a4b970a


Requires
--------
vim-fugitive-gitlab (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    vim-common
    vim-fugitive



Provides
--------
vim-fugitive-gitlab:
    vim-fugitive-gitlab



Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn vim-fugitive-gitlab
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Ocaml, Python, PHP, Java, Perl, R, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 6 Pavel Raiskup 2022-09-05 15:55:46 UTC
Thank you for the update, and sorry for delay (I was on vacation).

(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #5)
> This no longer sorts properly. You should remove the previous entries.

I fixed the changelog.  I started from scratch, it shouldn't be a problem since
the package is not in Fedora, yet.

> ```
> install -p -m 0644 doc/fugitive-gitlab.txt %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/doc
> install -p -m 0644 plugin/gitlab.vim %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/plugin
> for filename in api fugitive omnifunc utils; do
>     install -p -m 0644 autoload/gitlab/$filename.vim
> %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/autoload/gitlab
> done
> ```
> 
> This seems unnecessarily convoluted. Why don't you just use `cp -rp`to copy
> the directories that you need?

I prefer this because I have the list of files (and the permissions) fully
under control.  I can change this, please just state it is really your
preference.

> > Requires: vim-common
> 
> This should only depend on vim-filesystem.

I think you need a proper vim runtime to use vim fugitive plugin, so
vim-filesystem wouldn't be enough?  OTOH, the package already depends on
vim-fugitive (which transitively depends on vim-common).  So I'm just
removing this dependency.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/vim-fugitive-gitlab/epel-9-x86_64/04809628-vim-fugitive-gitlab/vim-fugitive-gitlab.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/vim-fugitive-gitlab/epel-9-x86_64/04809628-vim-fugitive-gitlab/vim-fugitive-gitlab-0~20220701gitb73a8e-1.el9.src.rpm

Comment 7 Maxwell G 2022-09-05 18:03:21 UTC
(In reply to Pavel Raiskup from comment #6)
> Thank you for the update, and sorry for delay (I was on vacation).
> 
> (In reply to Maxwell G from comment #5)
> > This no longer sorts properly. You should remove the previous entries.
> 
> I fixed the changelog.  I started from scratch, it shouldn't be a problem
> since
> the package is not in Fedora, yet.

Yeah, that's good. Generally, packages should only have one changelog entry on import.

> 
> > ```
> > install -p -m 0644 doc/fugitive-gitlab.txt %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/doc
> > install -p -m 0644 plugin/gitlab.vim %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/plugin
> > for filename in api fugitive omnifunc utils; do
> >     install -p -m 0644 autoload/gitlab/$filename.vim
> > %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/autoload/gitlab
> > done
> > ```
> > 
> > This seems unnecessarily convoluted. Why don't you just use `cp -rp`to copy
> > the directories that you need?
> 
> I prefer this because I have the list of files (and the permissions) fully
> under control.  I can change this, please just state it is really your
> preference.

I don't mind.

> 
> > > Requires: vim-common
> > 
> > This should only depend on vim-filesystem.
> 
> I think you need a proper vim runtime to use vim fugitive plugin, so
> vim-filesystem wouldn't be enough?  OTOH, the package already depends on
> vim-fugitive (which transitively depends on vim-common).  So I'm just
> removing this dependency.

From what I've seen, most vim plugin packages just depend on vim-filesystem. Please directly depend on that. It owns the directories.

Comment 9 Maxwell G 2022-09-06 16:18:52 UTC
Approved! Thanks for incorporating my feedback.

Comment 10 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-09-06 18:04:23 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim-fugitive-gitlab

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2022-09-06 18:25:09 UTC
FEDORA-2022-9d59c85784 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9d59c85784

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2022-09-06 18:32:45 UTC
FEDORA-2022-9d59c85784 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2022-09-07 04:34:19 UTC
FEDORA-2022-68c7e36176 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-68c7e36176

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2022-09-07 04:34:20 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-24bae9230c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-24bae9230c

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2022-09-07 04:34:21 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e78f68bc31 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e78f68bc31

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2022-09-07 04:34:22 UTC
FEDORA-2022-2230657233 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2230657233

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2022-09-07 07:38:52 UTC
FEDORA-2022-2230657233 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-2230657233 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2230657233

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

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2022-09-07 10:51:04 UTC
FEDORA-2022-68c7e36176 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-68c7e36176 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-68c7e36176

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

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2022-09-07 11:15:31 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-24bae9230c 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-2022-24bae9230c

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

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2022-09-07 11:21:43 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e78f68bc31 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-2022-e78f68bc31

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

Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2022-09-15 01:54:21 UTC
FEDORA-2022-68c7e36176 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 22 Fedora Update System 2022-09-15 02:14:40 UTC
FEDORA-2022-2230657233 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 23 Fedora Update System 2022-09-15 02:48:39 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-24bae9230c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 24 Fedora Update System 2022-09-15 02:52:57 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e78f68bc31 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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.