Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/dnstracer.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: dnstracer determines where a given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data. Fedora Account System Username: jonathanspw
*** Bug 2110051 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2110054 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Fedora review dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.src.rpm 2022-07-29 $ rpmlint dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.src.rpm \ dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm dnstracer.src: E: summary-too-long Dnstracer determines where a given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data. dnstracer.x86_64: E: summary-too-long Dnstracer determines where a given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data. dnstracer.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Dnstracer determines where a given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data. dnstracer.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Dnstracer determines where a given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data. dnstracer.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Dnstracer dnstracer.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Dnstracer dnstracer.spec:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 14) dnstracer.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/dnstracer Can you fix the summary so that it's not excessively long? Debian packages often have good summaries and you could maybe copy the text from https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/dnstrace, 'Trace DNS queries to the source' Rpmlint also warns about mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs. You could make rpmlint happy by only using one or the other. + OK ! needs attention ! rpmlint warnings above need a bit of work + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The license text (LICENSE) is included in %license + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm SHA512 (dnstracer-1.9.tar.gz) = e69fe772062ff315ff3148c26df78bd41c75d11dcfa6431f1e9374e6069182bd80826b22dc116011d975838d9527913d46edd78de049edd25e3ac9247d5f3473 SHA512 (Download/dnstracer-1.9.tar.gz) = e69fe772062ff315ff3148c26df78bd41c75d11dcfa6431f1e9374e6069182bd80826b22dc116011d975838d9527913d46edd78de049edd25e3ac9247d5f3473 + Package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a locale handling + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all the directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect the runtime of application n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Development files should be in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a Proper .desktop file handling + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + Filenames are valid UTF-8 + Package does not depend on deprecated packages > #%%global debug_package %%{nil} Is this needed? I'd just delete this line if not. > %setup -q > %patch0 -p1 If you want to, you could replace these two lines with %autosetup -p1 ... which in my opinion makes patching packages slightly easier as it removes the need to update %patchX lines when adding/removing patches. > %configure --prefix=%{_prefix} Passing --prefix shouldn't be necessary here because it's already included in %configure macro (see 'rpm -E %configure'). > * Thu Jul 21 2022 jonathanspw <jonathan> - 1.9-1 Maybe use your real name here instead of jonathanspw? Your call really :)
(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #3) > Fedora review dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.src.rpm 2022-07-29 > > $ rpmlint dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.src.rpm \ > dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm > > dnstracer.src: E: summary-too-long Dnstracer determines where a given Domain > Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS > servers back to the servers which know the data. > dnstracer.x86_64: E: summary-too-long Dnstracer determines where a given > Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of > DNS servers back to the servers which know the data. > dnstracer.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Dnstracer determines where a given > Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of > DNS servers back to the servers which know the data. > dnstracer.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Dnstracer determines where a > given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the > chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data. > dnstracer.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Dnstracer > dnstracer.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Dnstracer > dnstracer.spec:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: > line 14) > dnstracer.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/dnstracer > > > Can you fix the summary so that it's not excessively long? Debian packages > often have good summaries and you could maybe copy the text from > https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/dnstrace, 'Trace DNS queries to the > source' Fixed > Rpmlint also warns about mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs. You could make > rpmlint happy by only using one or the other. Fixed > + OK > ! needs attention > > ! rpmlint warnings above need a bit of work Fixed > + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines > + The spec file name matches the base package name. > + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines > + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the > Licensing Guidelines. > + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license > + The license text (LICENSE) is included in %license > + Spec file is written in American English > + Spec file is legible > + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm > SHA512 (dnstracer-1.9.tar.gz) = > e69fe772062ff315ff3148c26df78bd41c75d11dcfa6431f1e9374e6069182bd80826b22dc116 > 011d975838d9527913d46edd78de049edd25e3ac9247d5f3473 > SHA512 (Download/dnstracer-1.9.tar.gz) = > e69fe772062ff315ff3148c26df78bd41c75d11dcfa6431f1e9374e6069182bd80826b22dc116 > 011d975838d9527913d46edd78de049edd25e3ac9247d5f3473 > + Package builds in koji > n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed > + BuildRequires look sane > n/a locale handling > + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries > n/a Package isn't relocatable > + Package owns all the directories it creates > + No duplicate files in %files > + Permissions are properly set > + Consistent use of macros > + The package must contain code or permissible content > n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage > + Files marked %doc should not affect the runtime of application > n/a Static libraries should be in -static > n/a Development files should be in -devel > n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base > + Packages should not contain libtool .la files > n/a Proper .desktop file handling > + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages > + Filenames are valid UTF-8 > + Package does not depend on deprecated packages > > > > #%%global debug_package %%{nil} > > Is this needed? I'd just delete this line if not. Development leftovers. Fixed. > > %setup -q > > %patch0 -p1 > > If you want to, you could replace these two lines with > %autosetup -p1 > ... which in my opinion makes patching packages slightly easier as it > removes the need to update %patchX lines when adding/removing patches. Done. Thanks for the suggestion. > > %configure --prefix=%{_prefix} > > Passing --prefix shouldn't be necessary here because it's already included > in %configure macro (see 'rpm -E %configure'). Fixed > > * Thu Jul 21 2022 jonathanspw <jonathan> - 1.9-1 > > Maybe use your real name here instead of jonathanspw? Your call really :) Gotta love rpmdev-newspec :) Adjusted to my name. Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/dnstracer.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.src.rpm
Everything looks good to me! APPROVED
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-961ad5de4d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-961ad5de4d
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-115b72ef4c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-115b72ef4c
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-961ad5de4d 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-2022-961ad5de4d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-115b72ef4c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-115b72ef4c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ea952aa4c5 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-ea952aa4c5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c9317f3ed5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c9317f3ed5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c9317f3ed5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ea952aa4c5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.