Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ndavidov/pgbadger/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08635830-pgbadger/pgbadger.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ndavidov/pgbadger/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08635830-pgbadger/pgbadger-13.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: PgBadger is a PostgreSQL log analyzer built for speed providing fully detailed reports based on your PostgreSQL log files. It's a small standalone Perl script that outperforms any other PostgreSQL log analyzer. Fedora Account System Username: ndavidov
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- 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.
Looks like dist-git repo in COPR is broken (https://github.com/fedora-copr/copr/issues/3591) Fortunately, COPR does its own Fedora Review (https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ndavidov/pgbadger/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08635830-pgbadger/fedora-review/) I am copying the results here so they are easily accessible. 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 ===== Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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", "PostgreSQL License", "Artistic License 2.0 and/or PostgreSQL License", "*No copyright* PostgreSQL License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 and/or MIT License". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/pgbadger/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: 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 40878 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pgbadger-13.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm pgbadger-13.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpj_y72qxd')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "pgbadger". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/darold/pgbadger/archive/refs/tags/v13.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4cfaa24e6e7623e3f54e4a9dc35cc8030f7d2486931dc018d677d73181ba3626 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4cfaa24e6e7623e3f54e4a9dc35cc8030f7d2486931dc018d677d73181ba3626 Requires -------- pgbadger (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(Benchmark) perl(Encode) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Spec) perl(File::Temp) perl(FileHandle) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(IO::File) perl(IO::Handle) perl(IO::Pipe) perl(POSIX) perl(Socket) perl(Storable) perl(Text::CSV_XS) perl(Text::Wrap) perl(Time::Local) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(utf8) perl(vars) perl(warnings) Provides -------- pgbadger: pgbadger Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name pgbadger --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, R, Python, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8647481 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2345173-pgbadger/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08647481-pgbadger/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.
Specfile tips: 1. Please make use of the `%autosetup` macro if possible (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_autosetup) 2. Make use of the %{name} macro where you can. It eliminates the TYPOs 3. I'm unsure if the `rpmautospec` does this in COPR or if the SPEC file is the same as the one in your local directory. Could you please load it somewhere else so I can see if COPR causes it? 4. As we've discussed previously, it's a good practice to link the upstream proposal for the patch next to our downstream patches. Please update your spec, upload it, and link it here in the new comment so I can see the new fixed version. After that I'll move to the review process.
Spec URL: https://github.com/ndavidova/pgbadger-package/blob/main/pgbadger.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/ndavidova/pgbadger-package/blob/main/pgbadger-13.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: PgBadger is a PostgreSQL log analyzer built for speed providing fully detailed reports based on your PostgreSQL log files. It's a small standalone Perl script that outperforms any other PostgreSQL log analyzer. Fedora Account System Username: ndavidov
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8652020 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2345173-pgbadger/srpm-builds/08652020/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.
So your updated specfile looks good, just a small suggestion that could improve it some: under %files you could change %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1p.gz to %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*. This is to comply with the packaging guidelines here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages. And the reason this is here is because rpmbuild will re-compress manpages to whatever it's preferred format is, which could vary depending on the distribution and/or configuration. I'm also not sure that %{_fixperms} is necessary, I thought mock already executed that command automatically but perhaps I'm remembering wrong.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ndavidov/pgbadger/fedora-41-aarch64/08654423-pgbadger/pgbadger.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ndavidov/pgbadger/fedora-41-aarch64/08654423-pgbadger/pgbadger-13.0-3.fc41.src.rpm Description: PgBadger is a PostgreSQL log analyzer built for speed providing fully detailed reports based on your PostgreSQL log files. It's a small standalone Perl script that outperforms any other PostgreSQL log analyzer. Fedora Account System Username: ndavidov
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8654516 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2345173-pgbadger/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08654516-pgbadger/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.
I tested pgBadger on Fedora Rawhide machine. The goal was to verify proper installation, processing of PostgreSQL logs, report generation, and proper deletion of the package. Running pgBadger: pgbadger -o report.html <path_to_postgresql_log>/postgresql.log Generated report: https://ljavorsk.fedorapeople.org/pgbadger/report.html
Thank you Nikola, I've reviewed the manual review sections in the Fedora Review and here are the results: Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [?]: 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", "PostgreSQL License", "Artistic License 2.0 and/or PostgreSQL License", "*No copyright* PostgreSQL License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 and/or MIT License". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/pgbadger/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [-]: 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. [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]: 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 40878 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pgbadger-13.0-3.fc43.noarch.rpm pgbadger-13.0-3.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpsoa_vylw')] checks: 32, packages: 2 pgbadger.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/pgbadger 555 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "pgbadger". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s -------------------------------------- I have basically two things: 1. Please review the licenses that are used within the sources, you must include all of the licenses that are used within this project (e.g. file `resources/fontawesome.css` has multiple licenses that are not stated in the License part in the specfile, but there might be more like this one, use the licensecheck report [1]). PS: Little tip: write a comment above the `License:` part in the specfile with the individual files and their licenses, so it's easier accessible for future reference. 2. Please review the non-standard permissions on the /usr/lib/pgbadger file (555), maybe even discuss with the upstream if you don't find the answer why is it set like this (standard is 755, you can check it in any Fedora /usr/lib directory) [1] https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40fedora-review/fedora-review-2345173-pgbadger/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08654516-pgbadger/fedora-review/licensecheck.txt
Sorry, the mock build was successful, so: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Thank you for the review, I have updated the list of licenses and provided a comment with example files. I fixed the permissions on pgbadger file by adding %{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/pgbadger but compared to my previous version, I apply fixperms only on this specific file not on the whole directory. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ndavidov/pgbadger/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/08678233-pgbadger/pgbadger.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ndavidov/pgbadger/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/08678233-pgbadger/pgbadger-13.0-6.fc43.src.rpm
Thank you for the fixes. This package is ready to be included in Fedora. You'll also need a sponsor for being added to the `packager` group
Hello @ndavidov, since this is your first Fedora package, you need to get sponsored by a package sponsor before it can be accepted. A sponsor is an experienced package maintainer who will guide you through the processes that you will follow and the tools that you will use as a future maintainer. A sponsor will also be there to answer your questions related to packaging. You can find all active sponsors here: https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/ I created a sponsorship request for you: https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/706 Please take a look and make sure the information is correct. Thank you, and best of luck on your packaging journey. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pgbadger
FEDORA-2025-945f44524d (pgbadger-13.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-945f44524d
FEDORA-2025-945f44524d (pgbadger-13.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.