Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/packetdrill/packetdrill.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/packetdrill/packetdrill-2.0~20220927gitc556afb-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: The packetdrill scripting tool enables quick, precise tests for entire TCP/UDP/IPv4/IPv6 network stacks, from the system call layer down to the NIC hardware. packetdrill currently works on Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD. It can test network stack behavior over physical NICs on a LAN, or on a single machine using a tun virtual network device. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=93015537
almost LGTM. Note: per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/WeakDependencies/ since the -data subpackage ships Emacs site-lisp files you might want to make it Suggests: emacs -- or maybe just make the Emacs mode a separate subpackage, that way it's easier to find. Also - maybe BR emacs so you can bytecompile /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/packetdrill.el ? see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Emacs/#_manual_byte_compilation (maybe the build system will automatically do it if you pull in emacs as a BR, and it didn't get compiled because emacs wasn't available) And use %{_emacs_sitelispdir} rather than hardcode the directory name in %files https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Emacs/#_file_locations 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Public domain GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 98 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2134899-packetdrill/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. [!]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in packetdrill-data [?]: 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. [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]: 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: 4 packetdrill.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary packetdrill packetdrill-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/packetdrill/archive/c556afbd8840149991b6e830f2d3d63cc50388b1/packetdrill-c556afbd8840149991b6e830f2d3d63cc50388b1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a0adbbc82c96c530c735568c3fab5eb53640172a0abc8e721e759a1a7211947b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a0adbbc82c96c530c735568c3fab5eb53640172a0abc8e721e759a1a7211947b Requires -------- packetdrill (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) packetdrill-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/sh bash coreutils emacs-filesystem iproute procps-ng python3 vim-filesystem packetdrill-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): packetdrill-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- packetdrill: packetdrill packetdrill(x86-64) packetdrill-data: packetdrill-data packetdrill-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) packetdrill-debuginfo packetdrill-debuginfo(x86-64) packetdrill-debugsource: packetdrill-debugsource packetdrill-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2134899 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, Python, Haskell, fonts, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/packetdrill/packetdrill.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/packetdrill/packetdrill-2.0~20220927gitc556afb-1.fc38.src.rpm Changelog: - bytecompile emacs config - add suggests for vim and emacs
LGTM, approved
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/packetdrill
FEDORA-2022-9cc97e06a2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9cc97e06a2
FEDORA-2022-9cc97e06a2 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-c2d8d27849 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c2d8d27849
FEDORA-2022-b39dc52e1c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b39dc52e1c
FEDORA-2022-2ca01a1a88 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2ca01a1a88
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-af150e067e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-af150e067e
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2db0b9a67f has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2db0b9a67f
FEDORA-2022-c2d8d27849 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-c2d8d27849 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c2d8d27849 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2db0b9a67f 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-af150e067e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-b39dc52e1c 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-b39dc52e1c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b39dc52e1c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-2ca01a1a88 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-2ca01a1a88 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2ca01a1a88 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-b39dc52e1c has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-2ca01a1a88 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-c2d8d27849 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.