Bug 2107911 - Review Request: titools - Command-line programs for communicating with a TI calculator
Summary: Review Request: titools - Command-line programs for communicating with a TI c...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Troy Curtis
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-07-17 14:41 UTC by Davide Cavalca
Modified: 2023-01-07 01:21 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-12-29 18:41:31 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
troy: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Davide Cavalca 2022-07-17 14:41:26 UTC
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/titools/titools.spec
SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/titools/titools-0.2^20160515gcc7dc08-1.fc37.src.rpm

Description:
This package contains a collection of simple command-line tools for
communicating with TI graphing calculators.  These tools are based on
the excellent libticalcs2 library developed by the TiLP project (or
the equivalent libcalcprotocols library.)

Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca

Comment 1 Davide Cavalca 2022-07-17 14:41:29 UTC
This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89610177

Comment 2 Troy Curtis 2022-12-26 20:35:19 UTC
Package Review
==============

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

===== Issues =====
- The license field should be SPDX now
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field
-

===== 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]: 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.

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", "FSF Unlimited License [generated
     file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License
     v3.0 or later". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2107911-titools/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 1 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.
     I borrowed my son's TI-84 plus and tested out several of the executables
     successfully.
[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     No tests are provided by upstream
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 3

titools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tidump
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Jonimoose/TITools/archive/cc7dc08d831beaf6c4f865c3acd49a2be58df5a9/TITools-cc7dc08d831beaf6c4f865c3acd49a2be58df5a9.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f51b27689b43e32a0181876a4904740b989b9e484c723ddd4219993407554d71
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f51b27689b43e32a0181876a4904740b989b9e484c723ddd4219993407554d71


Requires
--------
titools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libticables2.so.8()(64bit)
    libticalcs2.so.13()(64bit)
    libticonv.so.9()(64bit)
    libtifiles2.so.11()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

titools-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

titools-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
titools:
    titools
    titools(x86-64)

titools-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    titools-debuginfo
    titools-debuginfo(x86-64)

titools-debugsource:
    titools-debugsource
    titools-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2107911
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, fonts, R, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, Python, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 3 Davide Cavalca 2022-12-27 07:37:10 UTC
Thanks!

Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/titools/titools.spec
SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/titools/titools-0.2^20160515gcc7dc08-1.fc38.src.rpm

Changelog:
- convert license tag to SPDX

Comment 4 Troy Curtis 2022-12-28 02:43:42 UTC
I get a 404 for the srpm and the linked spec file doesn't have the SPDX change in it. Did the updates get uploaded?

Comment 5 Davide Cavalca 2022-12-28 07:41:57 UTC
Ah sorry, looks like the upload failed and I didn't notice. Should be fixed now.

Comment 6 Troy Curtis 2022-12-29 03:28:24 UTC
LGTM, approved.

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]: 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.

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", "FSF Unlimited License [generated
     file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License
     v3.0 or later". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2107911-titools/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.
[x]: 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 1 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.
     Tested several of the CLI apps with a TI-84 Plus.
[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     Not tests provided by upstream
[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: titools-0.2^20160515gcc7dc08-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          titools-debuginfo-0.2^20160515gcc7dc08-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          titools-debugsource-0.2^20160515gcc7dc08-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          titools-0.2^20160515gcc7dc08-1.fc38.src.rpm
==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpuravnhjl')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

titools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tidump
===================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ====================================================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: titools-debuginfo-0.2^20160515gcc7dc08-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp_ftgu6b9')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

===================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ====================================================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 3

titools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tidump
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Jonimoose/TITools/archive/cc7dc08d831beaf6c4f865c3acd49a2be58df5a9/TITools-cc7dc08d831beaf6c4f865c3acd49a2be58df5a9.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f51b27689b43e32a0181876a4904740b989b9e484c723ddd4219993407554d71
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f51b27689b43e32a0181876a4904740b989b9e484c723ddd4219993407554d71


Requires
--------
titools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libticables2.so.8()(64bit)
    libticalcs2.so.13()(64bit)
    libticonv.so.9()(64bit)
    libtifiles2.so.11()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

titools-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

titools-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
titools:
    titools
    titools(x86-64)

titools-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    titools-debuginfo
    titools-debuginfo(x86-64)

titools-debugsource:
    titools-debugsource
    titools-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2107911
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Python, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, R, PHP, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 7 Davide Cavalca 2022-12-29 17:21:19 UTC
Thanks!

$ fedpkg request-repo titools 2107911
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/50058
$ fedpkg request-branch --repo titools f37
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/50059
$ fedpkg request-branch --repo titools f36
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/50060

Comment 8 Kevin Fenzi 2022-12-29 18:26:24 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/titools

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2022-12-29 18:39:38 UTC
FEDORA-2022-1d530b2ffa has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-1d530b2ffa

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2022-12-29 18:41:31 UTC
FEDORA-2022-1d530b2ffa has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2022-12-29 20:56:32 UTC
FEDORA-2022-f65deb724d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f65deb724d

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2022-12-29 21:04:30 UTC
FEDORA-2022-887aec97d5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-887aec97d5

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2022-12-30 01:17:07 UTC
FEDORA-2022-f65deb724d 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-f65deb724d \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f65deb724d

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

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2022-12-30 01:40:20 UTC
FEDORA-2022-887aec97d5 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-2022-887aec97d5 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-887aec97d5

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

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2023-01-07 01:13:44 UTC
FEDORA-2022-887aec97d5 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2023-01-07 01:21:05 UTC
FEDORA-2022-f65deb724d has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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.