Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/nvtop.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/nvtop-3.0.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Nvtop stands for Neat Videocard TOP, a (h)top like task monitor for AMD, Intel and NVIDIA GPUs. It can handle multiple GPUs and print information about them in a htop familiar way. Fedora Account System Username: salimma
You have autorelease/autochangelog commented out, either remove them or remove the manual release/changelog
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 ===== 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "BSD 1-Clause License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "MIT License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/a/2139889-nvtop/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. [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. [-]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Syllo/nvtop/archive/3.0.0/nvtop-3.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f7da9eb85a4df6bd6a2d8afd47ae901755106c4ff7f63cd1df61a702f85f7027 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f7da9eb85a4df6bd6a2d8afd47ae901755106c4ff7f63cd1df61a702f85f7027 Requires -------- nvtop (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncursesw.so.6()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_240)(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) nvtop-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nvtop-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- nvtop: application() application(nvtop.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(io.github.syllo.nvtop.metainfo.xml) nvtop nvtop(x86-64) nvtop-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) nvtop-debuginfo nvtop-debuginfo(x86-64) nvtop-debugsource: nvtop-debugsource nvtop-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2139889 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, fonts, Perl, R, Ocaml, Python, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
I think you need to update the license tag, here's the licensecheck output for reference: *No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License ----------------------------------- nvtop-3.0.0/cmake/modules/FindLibdrm.cmake *No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3 ---------------------------------------------------- nvtop-3.0.0/README.markdown nvtop-3.0.0/snap/snapcraft.yaml BSD 1-Clause License -------------------- nvtop-3.0.0/include/uthash.h BSD 3-Clause License -------------------- nvtop-3.0.0/include/ini.h nvtop-3.0.0/src/ini.c GNU General Public License v3.0 or later ---------------------------------------- nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/common.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/device_discovery.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/extract_gpuinfo.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/extract_gpuinfo_common.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/extract_processinfo_fdinfo.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/get_process_info.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/info_messages.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/interface.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/interface_common.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/interface_internal_common.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/interface_options.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/interface_ring_buffer.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/interface_setup_win.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/plot.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/time.h nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/version.h.in nvtop-3.0.0/src/device_discovery_linux.c nvtop-3.0.0/src/extract_gpuinfo.c nvtop-3.0.0/src/extract_gpuinfo_amdgpu.c nvtop-3.0.0/src/extract_gpuinfo_intel.c nvtop-3.0.0/src/extract_gpuinfo_nvidia.c nvtop-3.0.0/src/extract_processinfo_fdinfo.c nvtop-3.0.0/src/get_process_info_linux.c nvtop-3.0.0/src/info_messages_linux.c nvtop-3.0.0/src/interface.c nvtop-3.0.0/src/interface_options.c nvtop-3.0.0/src/interface_setup_win.c nvtop-3.0.0/src/nvtop.c nvtop-3.0.0/src/plot.c nvtop-3.0.0/src/time.c nvtop-3.0.0/tests/interfaceTests.cpp GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later ----------------------------------------------- nvtop-3.0.0/include/list.h MIT License ----------- nvtop-3.0.0/cmake/modules/FindASan.cmake nvtop-3.0.0/cmake/modules/FindMSan.cmake nvtop-3.0.0/cmake/modules/FindSanitizers.cmake nvtop-3.0.0/cmake/modules/FindTSan.cmake nvtop-3.0.0/cmake/modules/FindUBSan.cmake nvtop-3.0.0/cmake/modules/asan-wrapper nvtop-3.0.0/cmake/modules/sanitize-helpers.cmake Unknown or generated -------------------- nvtop-3.0.0/.clang-format nvtop-3.0.0/AppImage/make_appimage.sh nvtop-3.0.0/AppImage/make_appimage_ubuntu_1804_docker.sh nvtop-3.0.0/CMakeLists.txt nvtop-3.0.0/COPYING nvtop-3.0.0/Dockerfile nvtop-3.0.0/cmake/cmake_uninstall.cmake.in nvtop-3.0.0/cmake/compile-flags-helpers.cmake nvtop-3.0.0/cmake/modules/FindCurses.cmake nvtop-3.0.0/cmake/modules/FindSystemd.cmake nvtop-3.0.0/cmake/modules/FindUDev.cmake nvtop-3.0.0/cmake/optimization_flags.cmake nvtop-3.0.0/desktop/nvtop.desktop nvtop-3.0.0/desktop/nvtop.metainfo.xml.in nvtop-3.0.0/desktop/nvtop.svg nvtop-3.0.0/include/nvtop/interface_layout_selection.h nvtop-3.0.0/manpage/nvtop.in nvtop-3.0.0/screenshot/NVTOP_ex1.png nvtop-3.0.0/screenshot/Nvtop-config.png nvtop-3.0.0/src/CMakeLists.txt nvtop-3.0.0/src/interface_layout_selection.c nvtop-3.0.0/src/interface_ring_buffer.c nvtop-3.0.0/tests/CMakeLists.txt
Note: NVIDIA support is via dlopen, and this package is also functional on AMD and Intel GPUs anyway I can add some weak dependencies on the needed Nvidia libraries, but worried it might mess up people who e.g. have some repos enabled but install their drivers from source.
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #1) > You have autorelease/autochangelog commented out, either remove them or > remove the manual release/changelog I'll be enabling them for the imported build, it's just easier to have both in when doing local builds for EPEL since without a repo to do `fedpkg srpm` in the `%autorelease` does not get resolved Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=93753645
spec updated with license breakdown. Also switched back to %autorelease / %autochangelog (they were previously properly commented out with %%)
lgtm now, APPROVED
Thanks! specs/utils on master [✘?] ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:37] ❯ fedpkg request-repo nvtop 2139889 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48787 specs/utils on master [✘?] took 4s ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:37] ❯ fedpkg request-branch --repo nvtop --all-releases https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48788 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48789 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48790 specs/utils on master [✘?] took 8s ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:37] ❯ fedpkg request-branch --repo nvtop epel8 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48791 specs/utils on master [✘?] took 12s ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:37] ❯ fedpkg request-branch --repo nvtop epel9 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48792
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nvtop
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-51f8f40104 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-51f8f40104
FEDORA-2022-e264ab809d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e264ab809d
FEDORA-2022-c3901e45f6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c3901e45f6
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-80e67e007e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-80e67e007e
FEDORA-2022-e264ab809d 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-e264ab809d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e264ab809d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-80e67e007e 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-2022-80e67e007e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-51f8f40104 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-c3901e45f6 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-c3901e45f6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c3901e45f6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-2cad5b084c has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-c3901e45f6 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-e264ab809d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-80e67e007e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.