Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age.spec SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age-1.1-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: This plugin pulls the most recently created file in each specified directory, and checks its created time against the current time. If the maximum age of the file is exceeded, a warning/critical message is returned as appropriate. COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/thofmann/nagios-plugins/build/4883430/ Fedora Account System Username: thofmann
> Name: nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age According to nagios-plugins naming convention, this should be nagios-plugins-newest_file_age. (This comment is not review blocking.) > BuildRequires: make I believe this is not needed. If it is, ignore this comment. You could do BuildRequires: coreutils to be explicit about having 'install', though. Or just BuildRequires: /usr/bin/install. > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/nagios, > /usr/lib64/nagios/plugins Please add Requires: nagios-common > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). > See: (this test has no URL) This is just because 'fedpkg srpm', fedora-review and rpmautospec are not compatible. No action needed, just do not try to 'fedpkg import' that srpm. > nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib $ rpmlint -e only-non-binary-in-usr-lib only-non-binary-in-usr-lib: There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. Nagios plugins directory in under /usr/lib64, putting a shell script there is valid. No action needed.
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/otto/src/Jakelut/Fedora/Katselmointi/2131603-nagios-plugins- check_newest_file_age/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/nagios, /usr/lib64/nagios/plugins [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 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). [?]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: upstream does not provide any tests. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- 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: 1 nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/thehunmonkgroup/nagios-plugin-newest-file-age/archive/v1.1/nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age-1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6a5482e9a7ab0b9491bb16661257472d64c8da8ed90759c4226524506d0a4335 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6a5482e9a7ab0b9491bb16661257472d64c8da8ed90759c4226524506d0a4335 Requires -------- nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh coreutils Provides -------- nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age: nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/otto/src/Jakelut/Fedora/Katselmointi/2131603-nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age/srpm/nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age.spec 2022-10-08 01:35:47.816487509 +0300 +++ /home/otto/src/Jakelut/Fedora/Katselmointi/2131603-nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age/srpm-unpacked/nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age.spec 2022-10-02 21:49:19.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global nagiospluginsdir %{_libdir}/nagios/plugins Name: nagios-plugins-check_newest_file_age @@ -40,3 +49,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Sun Oct 02 2022 John Doe <packager> 1.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2131603 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Ruby, C/C++, R, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Sorry for the late reply and thank you for the review! I've followed all your suggestions. As you've already approved the package, I'll directly continue with creating the repo etc. For reference, here are the updated files: Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/nagios-plugins-newest_file_age.spec SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/nagios-plugins-newest_file_age-1.1-2.fc38.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/nagios-plugins-newest_file_age.spec SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/nagios-plugins-newest_file_age-1.1-2.fc38.src.rpm I just realized you have not actually approved the package already. So I'll wait for your feedback :)
Sorry, my mistake. I set fedora-review to '+' now. Package approved, thank you for the contribution!
Thank you for reviewing and for all your feedback!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nagios-plugins-newest_file_age
FEDORA-2022-9f8353f4e6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9f8353f4e6
FEDORA-2022-2da4b8b8cc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2da4b8b8cc
FEDORA-2022-9f8353f4e6 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-2022-9f8353f4e6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9f8353f4e6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-2da4b8b8cc 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-2022-2da4b8b8cc \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2da4b8b8cc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-9f8353f4e6 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-2da4b8b8cc has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.