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 1986953
| Summary: | Review Request: snoopy - A preload library to send shell commands to syslog | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Neal Gompa <ngompa13> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Michel Lind <michel> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | michel, moceap, package-review, projects.rg |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | michel:
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: | 2021-08-07 01:08:21 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1736689, 1884057 | ||
|
Description
Neal Gompa
2021-07-28 15:15:55 UTC
*** Bug 1928586 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=72847804 Note, this is for unretiring snoopy in Fedora and fixing the FTBFS issues. Raphael Groner 2021-03-04 18:59:12 UTC Some hints to your spec file: … o may additionally to BR add also Requires: procps-ng - is that a weak dependency, why Fedora only? o please consider to generate documentation and ship in a doc subpackage … o use systemd macros in %post and %postun https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd Are you interested in a review swap? (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #4) > Raphael Groner 2021-03-04 18:59:12 UTC > Some hints to your spec file: > > … > o may additionally to BR add also Requires: procps-ng - is that a weak > dependency, why Fedora only? That's provided by the BR on %{_bindir}/ps, no? > o please consider to generate documentation and ship in a doc subpackage > … > o use systemd macros in %post and %postun > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/ > #_systemd This package does not ship unit files, not sure this is relevant Looks fine, APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages => This is OK, needed because it's a preload library - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/snoopy See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names => Unretiring, expected ===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "[generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "MIT License [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)". 142 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/1986953-snoopy/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 3 files. [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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [-]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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: snoopy-2.4.14-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm snoopy-debuginfo-2.4.14-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm snoopy-debugsource-2.4.14-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm snoopy-2.4.14-1.fc35.src.rpm snoopy.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preload -> reload, p reload, freeload snoopy.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syslog -> slog snoopy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US execve -> exec snoopy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syslog -> slog snoopy.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/a2o/snoopy <urlopen error timed out> snoopy.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libsnoopy.so snoopy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snoopy-disable snoopy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snoopy-enable snoopy.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preload -> reload, p reload, freeload snoopy.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syslog -> slog snoopy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US execve -> exec snoopy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syslog -> slog snoopy.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/a2o/snoopy <urlopen error timed out> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: snoopy-debuginfo-2.4.14-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- snoopy: /usr/lib64/libsnoopy.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/a2o/snoopy/releases/download/snoopy-2.4.14/snoopy-2.4.14.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6f305f49d87d56906061ded9083dc0308365f966a13edacc3eb59191221ced1a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6f305f49d87d56906061ded9083dc0308365f966a13edacc3eb59191221ced1a Requires -------- snoopy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh config(snoopy) glibc libc.so.6()(64bit) libsnoopy.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) snoopy-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): snoopy-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- snoopy: config(snoopy) libsnoopy.so.0()(64bit) snoopy snoopy(x86-64) snoopy-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) snoopy-debuginfo snoopy-debuginfo(x86-64) snoopy-debugsource: snoopy-debugsource snoopy-debugsource(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: snoopy-2.4.14/configure.ac:73 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1986953 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, Python, Perl, fonts, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Thanks, unretirement request filed: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10236 FEDORA-2021-e290730a1b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e290730a1b FEDORA-2021-a6f6beca52 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a6f6beca52 FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ddae0be390 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ddae0be390 FEDORA-2021-a6f6beca52 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-a6f6beca52 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a6f6beca52 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-e290730a1b has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-e290730a1b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e290730a1b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ddae0be390 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ddae0be390 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-e290730a1b has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2021-a6f6beca52 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ddae0be390 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |