Bug 817847 (kismon) - Review Request: kismon - A simple GUI client for kismet
Summary: Review Request: kismon - A simple GUI client for kismet
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: kismon
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michal Ambroz
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-SECLAB
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-05-01 14:54 UTC by Fabian Affolter
Modified: 2012-06-10 01:36 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-06-10 01:32:23 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
rebus: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Fabian Affolter 2012-05-01 14:54:41 UTC
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/kismon.spec
SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/kismon-0.5-1.fc16.src.rpm

Project URL: http://www.salecker.org/software/kismon/en

Description:
Kismon is a PyGTK Kismet Newcore client that creates a live map of the
networks. 

Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4039667

rpmlint output:
[fab@laptop017 SRPMS]$ rpmlint kismon-0.5-1.fc16.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[fab@laptop017 noarch]$ rpmlint kismon-0.5-1.fc16.noarch.rpm 
kismon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kismon
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Comment 1 Michal Ambroz 2012-05-20 19:16:53 UTC
Hello Fabian, I can do a review.

Comment 2 Michal Ambroz 2012-05-20 22:35:17 UTC
Review Summary:
- biggest issue is the licensing. Software seems to be licensed with 3 clause 
BSD style license while rpm package is told to be GPLv2+ - please fix

- upstream package doesn't contain soem overall separate file with a license -
please could you contact the upstream to evaluate possibility to add one?

- %files section contains %defattr. This is probably needed only for packages
or EL5 - do you plan to build package for EL5?
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions

Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 + manual check.

Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass - automatic check
X = Pass - manual check
! = Fail
? = Needs attention


==== Generic ====
[X?]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
	- package seems to be licensed with some 3 clause BSD type license
	- rpm package claims it is GPLv2+ - should be fixed

[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[X]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[X]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[X]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[X?]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
     for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-
     file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[X]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: 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 is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
	- package files seems to be licensed with the 3 clause BSD license while
          rpm states it is GPLv2+ - please change so it reflects reality

[X]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[X]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[X]: MUST Package installs properly.
[X]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
	- rpmlint reports absence of manpage, but in my opinion having 
    manpage for gui application without parameters makes no sense

rpmlint kismon-0.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm

kismon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kismon
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


rpmlint kismon-0.5-1.fc17.src.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/mambroz/wrk/fedora/817847/kismon-0.5.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : c64db2d85ffa5e1bad18c50a65cd0788
  MD5SUM upstream package : c64db2d85ffa5e1bad18c50a65cd0788

[X]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
	- package doesn't have a daemon
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
	- there are no binaries, just python
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
	- Tested on Fedora 17
[!]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[X]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[X]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[X]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
	- works fine on Fedora 17
[X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[X]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[X]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[X]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
     Note: Patch0: kismon-desktop.patch (kismon-desktop.patch)
	- automatic review script triggered not passed on the name of the patch, 
	but it seems to be fine 
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[X]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Comment 3 Fabian Affolter 2012-05-29 15:18:12 UTC
Thanks Michal.

(In reply to comment #2)
> Review Summary:
> - biggest issue is the licensing. Software seems to be licensed with 3
> clause 
> BSD style license while rpm package is told to be GPLv2+ - please fix

GPLv2+ is wrong, changed.

> - upstream package doesn't contain soem overall separate file with a license
> -
> please could you contact the upstream to evaluate possibility to add one?
 
I asked upstream to include a COPYING file.

> - %files section contains %defattr. This is probably needed only for packages
> or EL5 - do you plan to build package for EL5?
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions

Leftover, removed

Updated files:
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/kismon.spec
SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/kismon-0.5-2.fc16.src.rpm

Comment 4 Michal Ambroz 2012-05-29 17:45:02 UTC
ACCEPT
In my opinion the package is ready to be accepted for Fedora. 

Thank you Fabian.

Comment 5 Fabian Affolter 2012-05-30 12:06:57 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: kismon
Short Description: A simple GUI client for kismet
Owners: fab
Branches: f16, f17
InitialCC:

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-05-30 12:07:56 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2012-06-01 07:06:31 UTC
kismon-0.5-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kismon-0.5-2.fc16

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2012-06-01 07:07:05 UTC
kismon-0.5-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kismon-0.5-2.fc17

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2012-06-01 16:51:34 UTC
kismon-0.5-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2012-06-10 01:32:23 UTC
kismon-0.5-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2012-06-10 01:36:32 UTC
kismon-0.5-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.