Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1828813
Summary: | Review Request: bashtop - Resource monitor written in bash that shows usage and stats for processor, memory, disks, network and processes | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Alessio <alciregi> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Artem <ego.cordatus> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | ego.cordatus, germano.massullo, mail, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | ego.cordatus:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2020-05-02 03:45:27 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Alessio
2020-04-28 12:05:02 UTC
Just some quick comments: - Source0: could be replaced with %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz - %description should end with a period The shebang is "#!/usr/bin/env bash". Wouldn't this need "Requires: bash"? 1. License should be 'ASL 2.0'. 2. Source0: https://github.com/aristocratos/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz -> Source0: %{url}/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz 3. Use upstream summary: Linux resource monitor 4. Description is to long. Limit it at 80 symbols and add dot in the end. 5. %autosetup -n %{name}-%{version} -> %autosetup 6. Add also 'CHANGELOG.md' to %doc 7. Use macros consistenly in %files %{_bindir}/%{name] 8. Own whole directory %{_datadir}/%{name}/themes -> %{_datadir}/%{name}/ 9. Update to 0.8.16 version. --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/data- linux/tmp/review/1828813-bashtop/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/bashtop [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/bashtop [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [?]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [?]: 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 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: [x]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: bashtop-0.8.15-1.fc33.noarch.rpm bashtop-0.8.15-1.fc33.src.rpm bashtop.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Resource monitor that shows usage and stats for processor, memory, disks, network and processes, bashtop.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 bashtop.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashtop bashtop.src: E: description-line-too-long C Resource monitor that shows usage and stats for processor, memory, disks, network and processes, bashtop.src: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 bashtop.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- bashtop.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Resource monitor that shows usage and stats for processor, memory, disks, network and processes, bashtop.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 bashtop.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashtop 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aristocratos/bashtop/archive/v0.8.15/bashtop-v0.8.15.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 617aab0a23b1a9430f2ef7d51e4f89eb06c5b3f2ff40768cb6849fc2899ffc6a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 617aab0a23b1a9430f2ef7d51e4f89eb06c5b3f2ff40768cb6849fc2899ffc6a Requires -------- bashtop (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash Provides -------- bashtop: bashtop Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1828813 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, R, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, C/C++, Java, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Also you can add weak deps: Recommends: lm-sensors Recommends: curl Requires: awk Requires: coreutils Requires: grep Requires: procps-ng Requires: sed Also need here. awk -> gawk (In reply to Artem from comment #4) > Requires: awk > Requires: coreutils > Requires: grep > Requires: procps-ng > Requires: sed > > Also need here. Yes, I thought to include these lines. But just to learn, since they are "core" packages, i.e. they are provided with a default Fedora workstation installation, and they cannot be removed without removing critical or protected packages (ie. systemd, sudo, etc.) isn't "redundant" to put a Requires directive? New files. Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/bashtop/bashtop.spec SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/bashtop/bashtop-0.8.16-1.fc32.src.rpm Thank you. > Yes, I thought to include these lines. But just to learn, since they are "core" packages, i.e. they are provided with a default Fedora workstation installation, and they cannot be removed without removing critical or protected packages (ie. systemd, sudo, etc.) isn't "redundant" to put a Requires directive? rpmlint says that packages requires only '/usr/bin/bash' so probably safe to add there this packages explicitly. Also zram for example package: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zram/blob/master/f/zram.spec#_18 Also, please, replace awk with gawk as i mentioned there https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813#c5 --- %{_datadir}/%{name} -> %{_datadir}/%{name}/ Here is why this recommended to do: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694366#c14 --- This is cosmetic, but usually maintainers doing like this: %doc README.md %doc CHANGELOG.md -> %doc README.md CHANGELOG.md --- Please fix this minor issues before import. Package approved. (In reply to Artem from comment #8) > rpmlint says that packages requires only '/usr/bin/bash' so probably safe to > add there this packages explicitly. Also zram for example package: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zram/blob/master/f/zram.spec#_18 Like there I also added %build # None required > Also, please, replace awk with gawk as i mentioned there > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813#c5 Whoops, you are right > Here is why this recommended to do: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694366#c14 Thanks. > This is cosmetic, but usually maintainers doing like this: > > %doc README.md > %doc CHANGELOG.md > -> > %doc README.md CHANGELOG.md Done. > Please fix this minor issues before import. Package approved. Thank you very much. (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bashtop FEDORA-2020-60de772c5c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-60de772c5c FEDORA-2020-6ae3b955d5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6ae3b955d5 FEDORA-2020-90c636358d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-90c636358d FEDORA-2020-61cbb9c80f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-61cbb9c80f Hi Alessio, do you have any plan to release this package on EPEL too? FEDORA-2020-d82d4b5325 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d82d4b5325` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d82d4b5325 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2020-61cbb9c80f has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-61cbb9c80f` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-61cbb9c80f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. (In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #15) > Hi Alessio, do you have any plan to release this package on EPEL too? Hi Germano. I'm a rookie packager. I maintain a couple of simple packages. Said that, I don't know if releasing this package for EPEL needs extra efforts or it is a matter to issue "fedpkg switch-branch" && "git merge master" I can take a look, or if you like you can become a co-maintainer. Ciao Yes I would like to become co-maintainer By the way EPEL 7 and 8 are just other Fedora branches :-) (In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #19) > Yes I would like to become co-maintainer Nice! How it works? Is it sufficient I give you the rights on the repository, or is there some process to follow (i.e. opening a ticket, announcing it on the development mailing list)? (In reply to Alessio from comment #20) > (In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #19) > > Yes I would like to become co-maintainer > > Nice! > How it works? Is it sufficient I give you the rights on the repository, or > is there some process to follow (i.e. opening a ticket, announcing it on the > development mailing list)? https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bashtop -> Settings -> Users & Groups -> Add user -> germano Thank you! FEDORA-2020-eaefd37115 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-eaefd37115` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-eaefd37115 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. (In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #21) > <snip> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bashtop -> Settings -> Users & Groups -> Add user -> germano Sure. So no need to announce it anywhere. Done! > Thank you! You are welcome. FEDORA-2020-d82d4b5325 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2020-eaefd37115 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2020-aed8695f2e has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-aed8695f2e` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-aed8695f2e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2020-d59e8c5198 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d59e8c5198` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d59e8c5198 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2020-d093849ce8 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d093849ce8` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d093849ce8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2020-fd0102ca59 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-fd0102ca59` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fd0102ca59 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2020-fd0102ca59 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |