Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 510864
Review Request: colorize - Perl script to colorize logs
Last modified: 2011-01-04 12:34:29 EST
Spec URL: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/colorize/colorize.spec SRPM URL: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/colorize/colorize-0.3.4-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: This is a short perl script to colorize your logs. You can use your own colors, you can simply modify your config file in your home directory, or system-wide (/etc/colorize).
Hmmm... not sure is that a blocker but website could use some love. (currently empty).
Upstream website dead many time. Is it really problem? You can see it in archive - link in comment in spec file.
I think that the package simply shouldn't have a URL if the URL isn't valid or doesn't have anything to do with the package. You can include a comment referring to the archived site, or even refer to the archived site directly if you like. Of course, the state of the web site begs a more important question: is upstream still around, and if not then are you sure you want to package undeveloped software? Who will handle the bugs? Are you prepared to fork and maintain this software yourself. (Yes, it's just a log colorizer, but someone still has to maintain it.)
Jason Tibbitts, yes, I'm plan handle bugs himself. If there will be necessity, I "fork" project.
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64, EL-6/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: colorize.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) скрипт colorize.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) для colorize.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) раскрашивания colorize.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) логов colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Этот colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US короткий colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US скрипт colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US раскрашивает colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ваши colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US логи colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Вы colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US можете colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US изменять colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US цвета colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US по colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US своему colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US усмотрению colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US как colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US на colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US уровне colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US пользователя colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US редактируюя colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US конфиг colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US в colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US домашней colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US директории colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US или colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US системы colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US редактируя colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US сис colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US темный ->To be honest I do not understand why does rpmlint try to analyze the Russian text using the en_US parser. Anyway I guess all these warnings are ignorable. colorize.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://colorize.raszi.hu/download/colorize_0.3.4.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found ->http://colorize.raszi.hu/ does not point to a valid location any more. Please either use a valid URL or make a note that there is no valid upstream and ditch the "http" part. binary RPM: colorize.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C colorize -> ignorable, it's part of a valid phrase colorize.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found pl colorize.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found ru ->lack of hunspell support on my system, ignorable colorize.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perl -> Perl, peel, perk colorize.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure -> ignorable [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [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. License type:GPLv2+ [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 %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [?] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. -> no upstream [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Final provides and requires are sane. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. -> koji scratch builds were succesful for devel and EL-6 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: devel/x86_64, EL-6 (beta)/x86_64 [x] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [-] %check is present and the test passes. === Issues === 1. Please fix the Source tag 2. The changelog has a couple of typos: %%{booildroot} should be %%{buildroot}, "becouse" should be "because". however I think that the whole changelog is way too long. I would just make it "Initial version based on PLD's rpm". Your call, this is just a suggestion. === Final Notes === 1. Please fix the Source tag and you are good to go ================ *** APPROVED *** ================
Manuel, do you think I shoulkd place http://web.archive.org/web/20040604132106/http://colorize.raszi.hu/downloads/colorize_0.3.4.tar.bz2 in Source0? Mentioned typos in changelog fixed, thank you. What it imported from PLD repository already mentioned in first line of changelog entry. And all old entries removed by your suggestion. http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/colorize/colorize-0.3.4-2.fc11.src.rpm Manuel, thank you very much for the review. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: colorize Short Description: Perl script to colorize logs Owners: hubbitus Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-5 EL-6 InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
(In reply to comment #6) > Manuel, do you think I shoulkd place > http://web.archive.org/web/20040604132106/http://colorize.raszi.hu/downloads/colorize_0.3.4.tar.bz2 > in Source0? To be honest, I would not do that because no one knows how long will archive.org preserve anything AND they are not the actual upstream. I would at most add a comment refering to the archive web site. Now, looking again over Jason's comment, I think that preserving the original (and now useless ) URL is not a good idea. I suggest to comment it and mention that the original site no longer exists. >What it imported from PLD repository already mentioned in first line of >changelog entry. And all old entries removed by your suggestion. In my opinion all the comments from the first entry of the changelog could be removed. Just make it: - Initial version, based on ftp://ftp.icm.edu.pl/vol/rzm1/linux-pld-linux/dists/3.0/PLD/SRPMS/RPMS/colorize-0.3.4-1.src.rpm - Add Russian summary and description That's all that one might care for when looking at the Fedora package. If they are really interested in the changes towards the PLD version, they can download the PLD one and compare. As user of the package, I could not care less about the state of the original PLD package. > Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-5 EL-6 Thank you for asking for EPEL branches.
What worth adding external AUTHORS file, when authors did not done it? Futhermore, we put url (in the comments) on saved page where they are mentioned for history. Thanks for spell check :)
Sorry, last comment for another bug (trafshow).
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Manuel, do you think I shoulkd place > > http://web.archive.org/web/20040604132106/http://colorize.raszi.hu/downloads/colorize_0.3.4.tar.bz2 > > in Source0? > > To be honest, I would not do that because no one knows how long will > archive.org preserve anything AND they are not the actual upstream. Now we have not any information what it should be end shortly. Why we can't treat it as mirror? > >What it imported from PLD repository already mentioned in first line of > >changelog entry. And all old entries removed by your suggestion. > In my opinion all the comments from the first entry of the changelog could be > removed. Just make it: > > - Initial version, based on > ftp://ftp.icm.edu.pl/vol/rzm1/linux-pld-linux/dists/3.0/PLD/SRPMS/RPMS/colorize-0.3.4-1.src.rpm > - Add Russian summary and description Ok, I'll do that.
Looks like this package was never imported and built?
Regardless of review+ flag I wait answer about URL from Manuel. But you are right, I'll go build them - there many time spent... Kevin, thank you for catch.
Ah, I am sorry. You should not have waited for my reply. I still find a bit odd to use webarchive as upstream, but I I'll leave the decision to your best judgement. Please do go ahead and import it for all distros/releases that you can support. Thank you.
Ok, then I leave it as is. Thank you for the review. Import follow.
colorize-0.3.4-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/colorize-0.3.4-2.fc14
colorize-0.3.4-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/colorize-0.3.4-2.fc13
colorize-0.3.4-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/colorize-0.3.4-2.el5
colorize-0.3.4-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update colorize'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/colorize-0.3.4-2.el5
colorize-0.3.4-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
colorize-0.3.4-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
colorize-0.3.4-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.