Bug 1617920 (kcov) - Review Request: kcov - Code coverage tool without special compilation options
Summary: Review Request: kcov - Code coverage tool without special compilation options
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: kcov
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-08-16 07:17 UTC by Dridi Boukelmoune
Modified: 2018-08-30 19:03 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-08-16 19:54:21 UTC
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Dridi Boukelmoune 2018-08-16 07:17:50 UTC
Spec URL: https://dridi.fedorapeople.org/review/kcov.spec
SRPM URL: https://dridi.fedorapeople.org/review/kcov-35-1.fc29.src.rpm

Description:
Kcov is a code coverage tester for compiled programs, Python scripts and shell
scripts.  It allows collecting code coverage information from executables
without special command-line arguments, and continuously produces output from
long-running applications.

Fedora Account System Username: dridi

This submission supersedes bug 1480752 as I took too long to request the repository and branches creation. It is otherwise the same package submission rebased to the latest release.

Comment 1 Dridi Boukelmoune 2018-08-16 08:08:26 UTC
I forgot the scratch builds:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29103982 (rawhide)
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29104009 (f28)

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 2018-08-16 12:01:32 UTC
 - Add a comment explaining the license breakdown



Package approved.



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

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[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. Licenses
     found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 213 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/kcov/review-kcov/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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 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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in kcov-
     debuginfo , kcov-debugsource
[?]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: kcov-35-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          kcov-debuginfo-35-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          kcov-debugsource-35-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          kcov-35-1.fc29.src.rpm
kcov.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kcov-system-daemon
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Comment 3 Dridi Boukelmoune 2018-08-16 13:16:12 UTC
> [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>      must be documented in the spec.

For the record, the licenses breakdown will look like this:

    # Licenses of kcov itself and its bundled js libraries
    License:        GPLv2 and BSD and MIT

> [?]: Package functions as described.

I have it installed on my x86_64 laptop and I can confirm at least for that architecture that it works just fine.

Thanks!

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2018-08-16 14:41:29 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kcov

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2018-08-20 16:49:46 UTC
kcov-35-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b19a317636

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2018-08-22 03:13:07 UTC
kcov-35-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b19a317636

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2018-08-30 19:03:58 UTC
kcov-35-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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