Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/retsnoop.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/retsnoop-0.9.1-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: retsnoop is BPF-based tool that is meant to help debugging kernel issues. It allows to capture call stacks of kernel functions that return errors (NULL or -Exxx) and emits every such detected call stack, along with the captured results. Fedora Account System Username: salimma
Koji scratch builds: x86_64 only - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=93251565 before limiting the architectures - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=93251307
Taking this review
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. [!]: 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 2-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1". 110 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dcavalca/fedora- wip/rexx/2136601-retsnoop/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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: [x]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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 retsnoop.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/retsnoop retsnoop.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/simfail retsnoop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary retsnoop retsnoop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary simfail retsnoop-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 102290 retsnoop.x86_64: E: executable-stack /usr/bin/retsnoop 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/archive/v1.0.1/libbpf-1.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3d6afde67682c909e341bf194678a8969f17628705af25f900d5f68bd299cb03 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3d6afde67682c909e341bf194678a8969f17628705af25f900d5f68bd299cb03 https://github.com/anakryiko/retsnoop/archive/v0.9.1/retsnoop-0.9.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 882eb9a9280a2a2a289d6d25fddf8028b966cf13e73d8b514f5347d3996f8171 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 882eb9a9280a2a2a289d6d25fddf8028b966cf13e73d8b514f5347d3996f8171 Requires -------- retsnoop (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libelf.so.1()(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.0)(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.3)(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.5)(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.6)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.3.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) retsnoop-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): retsnoop-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- retsnoop: bundled(libbpf) retsnoop retsnoop(x86-64) retsnoop-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) retsnoop-debuginfo retsnoop-debuginfo(x86-64) retsnoop-debugsource: retsnoop-debugsource retsnoop-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2136601 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Python, Perl, Ocaml, R, Haskell, fonts, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
- the license field needs to be updated, as the bundled libbpf is a mix of GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 - is there an upstream issue or something we can link to to justify keeping libbpf bundled here? - likewise, is it possible to fix the tests to run in koji?
- Fixed license field in https://pagure.io/michel-slm/retsnoop/c/a1b21e6aaca1ccaaea28823f691c504808f82835?branch=rawhide - will check with author about providing an option to link against system libbpf - tests likely really need to be run on bare metal, but will check with author - rpmlint warnings: going to see about making sure CFLAGS are honored in the next iteration
Updated to address feedback Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/retsnoop.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/retsnoop-0.9.2-1.fc37.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=93405265
lgtm, APPROVED
Thanks! retsnoop on rawhide [?] ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:37] ❯ fedpkg request-repo (basename (pwd)) 2136601 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48412 retsnoop on rawhide [?] ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:37] ❯ fedpkg request-branch --repo (dirname (pwd)) --all-releases https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48413 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48414 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48415 retsnoop on rawhide [?] took 7s ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:37] ❯ fedpkg request-branch --repo (dirname (pwd)) epel9 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48416
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/retsnoop
Re-requesting branches because obviously I messed up using dirname when I meant basename retsnoop on rawhide ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:37] ❯ fedpkg request-branch --all-releases https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48431 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48432 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48433 retsnoop on rawhide took 6s ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:37] ❯ fedpkg request-branch epel9 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48434 retsnoop on rawhide took 4s ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:37] ❯ fedpkg request-branch epel8 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48435
FEDORA-2022-35ba726c7a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-35ba726c7a
FEDORA-2022-7fbcc44a96 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7fbcc44a96
FEDORA-2022-7bd831cb39 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7bd831cb39
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5a2e25f9ef has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5a2e25f9ef
FEDORA-2022-7fbcc44a96 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-2022-7fbcc44a96 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7fbcc44a96 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-7bd831cb39 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-2022-7bd831cb39 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7bd831cb39 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-35ba726c7a 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-2022-35ba726c7a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-35ba726c7a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5a2e25f9ef 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-2022-5a2e25f9ef See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-35ba726c7a has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-7bd831cb39 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5a2e25f9ef has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-7fbcc44a96 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.