Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/rs.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/rs-20200313-1.src.rpm Description: rs reads the standard input, interpreting each line as a row of blank-separated entries in an array, transforms the array according to the options, and writes it on the standard output. Numerous options control input, reshaping and output processing; the simplest usage example is "ls -1 | rs", which outputs the same (on an 80-column terminal) as the modern "ls" with no "-1" argument. Fedora Account System Username: robert
Updated package to cover Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 (via EPEL 7) as well. Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/rs.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/rs-20200313-2.src.rpm
Updated package for SPDX expression in license. Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/rs.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/rs-20200313-3.src.rpm
Overall, the packages looks very good. There is one minor item (copied from the list below): [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. -> the extra source check.pl is self-explanatory (used for testing the built binary) -> adding a short comment why the patch as well as the separate reallocarray.c is needed would be good Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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. -> upstream does not include license files [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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "The MirOS License", "ISC License". 2 files have unknown license. -> the files with "unknown license" are a Makefile and some test input (both included in the upstream tarball) [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. -> $RPM_OPT_FLAGS is used [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 [-]: 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. -> no package of that name exists, no "rs" binary in bin/sbin provided by any other package [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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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. [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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. -> the extra source check.pl is self-describing (used for testing the built binary) -> adding a short comment why the patch as well as the separate reallocarray.c is needed would be good [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. -> no gpg signatures available [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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. -> https Source0 URL only supports TLSv1, so I manually downloaded it via "wget --secure-protocol=TLSv1 https://www.mirbsd.org/MirOS/dist/mir/rs/rs-20200313.tar.gz" -> sha256sum of that file matches the tar.gz in the provided src.rpm: 919215dc9fe85a27a30bf63d56406cfb503f9fc9820323c4bd3bfe75a6a3bc3f rs-20200313.tar.gz -> there are no specific rules for this case in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ -> I suggest to keep the https URL even if most tools/browsers refuse to use by default -> alternatives would be: -> http URL -> just the file name in the Source0 field and the URL as a comment [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rs-20200313-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm rs-debuginfo-20200313-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm rs-debugsource-20200313-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm rs-20200313-3.fc40.src.rpm =========================================================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpufixh7oc')] checks: 31, packages: 4 ============================================================================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ============================================================================ Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rs-debuginfo-20200313-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm =========================================================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpox_prywi')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ============================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ============================================================================ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MirBSD/mircpio/012d285b8eb525a5cdcf91b5103bd0b7a4e41aa7/reallocarray.c : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c7947cdb2c4a454df87fe787a76ddbcdf96d3e25421face7d42b4cd275460e08 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c7947cdb2c4a454df87fe787a76ddbcdf96d3e25421face7d42b4cd275460e08 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MirBSD/mksh/bd8c18b7254d8735f18d239ca3fffaddc0434795/check.pl : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 95ec2b60f77869286523d2bbbcf0a0fd384dc76db95292030cfaecc1afcde18e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 95ec2b60f77869286523d2bbbcf0a0fd384dc76db95292030cfaecc1afcde18e https://www.mirbsd.org/MirOS/dist/mir/rs/rs-20200313.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 919215dc9fe85a27a30bf63d56406cfb503f9fc9820323c4bd3bfe75a6a3bc3f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 919215dc9fe85a27a30bf63d56406cfb503f9fc9820323c4bd3bfe75a6a3bc3f Requires -------- rs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rs-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rs-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- rs: rs rs(x86-64) rs-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) rs-debuginfo rs-debuginfo(x86-64) rs-debugsource: rs-debugsource rs-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2110814 -r -c Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, PHP, Java, fonts, Ocaml, Python, R, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Justified workarounds for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/rs.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/rs-20200313-4.src.rpm
Thanks for adding the comments regarding the RHEL7 workarounds in the spec file. -> approved
Thank you very much for the review!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rs
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-f8de86f577 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-f8de86f577
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-7fe23b07a7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-7fe23b07a7
FEDORA-2023-b98d1e6071 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b98d1e6071
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-73640dec77 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-73640dec77
FEDORA-2023-30518312a8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-30518312a8
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-f8de86f577 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-2023-f8de86f577 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-7252aa96d6 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-2023-7252aa96d6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-7252aa96d6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-7fe23b07a7 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-2023-7fe23b07a7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-73640dec77 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-2023-73640dec77 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-30518312a8 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-30518312a8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-30518312a8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-b98d1e6071 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-b98d1e6071 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b98d1e6071 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-7fe23b07a7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-f8de86f577 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-2023-73640dec77 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-7252aa96d6 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-b98d1e6071 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-30518312a8 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.