Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/nagios-plugins-ltb.spec SRPM URL: https://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/nagios-plugins-ltb-0.9-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: This is a collection of Nagios plugins and event handlers designed to monitor LDAP directories. Fedora Account System Username: xavierb
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6772004 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255338-nagios-plugins-ltb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06772004-nagios-plugins-ltb/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Spec URL: https://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/nagios-plugins-ltb.spec SRPM URL: https://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/nagios-plugins-ltb-0.9-2.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2005102 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6772004 to 6772028
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6772028 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255338-nagios-plugins-ltb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06772028-nagios-plugins-ltb/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2005105 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6772028 to 6772038
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6772038 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255338-nagios-plugins-ltb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06772038-nagios-plugins-ltb/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
Review still current.
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [-]: %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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 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]: 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 9116 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Sorry, this review has languished for a long time. I was poking around some other things for nagios-plugins and saw it. Two items I think need to be changed: 1) Specify BuildArch: noarch in the specfile 2) The line to install restart_slapd.sh is redundant and emits a warning. The previous install * gets it.
Hi Martin, Thanks for the review ! About 1/, all of nagios plugins packages are arch'ed, due to the way nagios itself is packaged. I've clarified the comment above the '%global debug_package %{nil}' line. About 2/, you're right, the %files section has been fixed. Regards, Xavier Spec URL: https://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/nagios-plugins-ltb.spec SRPM URL: https://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/nagios-plugins-ltb-0.9-3.fc46.src.rpm
Hi Xavier, on 1/, you are correct. I thought it worked differently (e.g. for nagios-plugins-check-updates) but I see that is arch'ed as well. 2/ Thanks. Package APPROVED.
Thanks ! You need to set up the review flag to +, so I can proceed with the repo creation, etc...
Sorry - this is my first package review. It's set now, thanks!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nagios-plugins-ltb Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`