Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 226317
Merge Review: procinfo
Last modified: 2015-03-04 18:56:38 EST
Fedora Merge Review: procinfo http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/procinfo/ Initial Owner: kzak@redhat.com
Hmm, another ticket not assigned to anyone but with the fedora-cvs flag set. If someone's reviewing this, please assign it to yourself and set the status appropriately.
There's a rewrite/alive upstream of a rewrite of procinfo available at http://procinfo-ng.sourceforge.net/ - would it make sense to update to it? procinfo-ng does not provide lsdev or socklist though, but I suppose they and their man pages could be borrowed from the old tarball.
This is the review request for procinfo-info https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471145
Bill Nottingham suggested to make procinfo obsolete if procinfo-ng is commandline-compatible and somewhat-output-compatible. Any thoughts on this?
What about Ville comment Comment #2 regarding lsdev and socklist? Otherwise I think it would be right. If somebody really wants the old procinfo he could resubmit it.
Those tools are definitely missing in the new version. I'm thinking that perhaps placing lsdev and socklist in separate packages to obtained the functionality could be an option.
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review $ rpmlint -v *.spec *.rpm x86_64/*.rpm procinfo.spec: I: checking-url ftp://ftp.cistron.nl/pub/people/00-OLD/svm/procinfo-18.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) procinfo.src: I: checking procinfo.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A tool for gathering and displaying system information. procinfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systematic procinfo.src: W: no-url-tag procinfo.src: I: checking-url ftp://ftp.cistron.nl/pub/people/00-OLD/svm/procinfo-18.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) procinfo.x86_64: I: checking procinfo.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A tool for gathering and displaying system information. procinfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systematic procinfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag procinfo.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/procinfo.8.gz 181: warning: `"' not defined procinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking procinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Ignored, but could be cleaned. + MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines + MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} + MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . + MUST: The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines + MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license 0 MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. + MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. + MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. + MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task From sources: $ cat sources 27658d0a69040aca05a65b9888599d50 procinfo-18.tar.gz From upstream (ftp://ftp.cistron.nl/pub/people/00-OLD/svm/procinfo-18.tar.gz): $ md5sum procinfo-18.tar.gz 27658d0a69040aca05a65b9888599d50 procinfo-18.tar.gz = MATCHES + MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture - tested on x86_64, no problems 0 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch + MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines 0 MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro 0 MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. 0 MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries 0 MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker + MUST: Package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory + MUST: Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings + MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. + MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + MUST: Each package must consistently use macros + MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content 0 MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage 0 MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application 0 MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package 0 MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package 0 MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' 0 MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package 0 MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built 0 MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section + MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages + MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 All MUST things passed. As the upstream is dead, shouldn't we adopt some bugfixes/features from other sources? Eg.: - segfault when /proc/stat exceeds 1024 characters - socklist in procinfo does not list tcp6, udp6, or raw6 http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-admin/procinfo/files/ https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/procinfo/+bugs?field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.status%3Alist=FIXRELEASED&search=Search http://fuzzle.org/procinfo/
Adding current maintainer to CC to give him a chance to respond :)
Imho at least the summary with dot at the end, old BuildRoot (although no longer used by rpm, so safe on modern Fedora) and comments in man page using ." instead of .\" before granting review+ .
Bugs from #9 and some other minor bugs should be fixed in procinfo-18-26.fc15.
procinfo-18-27.fc15 (#7 - add IPv6 support to socklist) Approved.