[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805 josef radinger changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-09-30 15:31:02 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805 --- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lolcat -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805 --- Comment #10 from josef radinger --- great sorry for the late answer, i was in hospital and afk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin --- LGTM, package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805 --- Comment #8 from Lukas Javorsky --- (In reply to josef radinger from comment #7) > lolcat /dev/urandom does not work on my side, too. it seems to stumble over > some sort of "binary" characters. Yes it can't read that "weird" characters. > but lolcat /etc/passwd does, as passwd usually has only "safe" characters. Yep it works, but when it doesn't work on every file, than it's not cat version I think. > concerning changelog: i create them in my test-envirnment, to be able to > distinguish "my" versions. every change -> new version -> new changelog One note, just for you to be correct in terminology, the number you had been increasing is RELEASE, no version. But yes i get it when you added the "my" in-front of it. Okay, so I can review it, but did you considered the maintaining of this package? It's not the most needed package in Fedora, I don't even know if it will be added to it. So it's up to you for reconsideration. Let me know if you decided that, you will be the maintainer, and I'll get to reviewing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805
--- Comment #7 from josef radinger ---
lolcat /dev/urandom does not work on my side, too. it seems to stumble over
some sort of "binary" characters.
but lolcat /etc/passwd does, as passwd usually has only "safe" characters.
concerning "macros everywhere": agreed, but not very important imho. it makes
reading somewhat complicated. i never found a real problem when not using
macros "everywhere" especially as they are a 1:1 relation.
concerning changelog: i create them in my test-envirnment, to be able to
distinguish "my" versions. every change -> new version -> new changelog
thanks for your input.
will fix %{name}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805 Lukas Javorsky changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805 Lukas Javorsky changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805
Lukas Javorsky changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ljavo...@redhat.com
--- Comment #6 from Lukas Javorsky ---
Hi, I've tried to build it in container and test the functionality, but I don't
think it works right.
Example:
lolcat /dev/urandom # It doesn't print anything
Tried it with cat first:
cat /dev/urandom > foo # Stop it manually (^C)
lolcat foo # Still nothing
And a few things that I've noticed in spec:
- Use macros everywhere you can
- Source, URL: change the lolcat to %{name}
- This is not a mistake, but I think that your Changelog doesn't need that many
releases, try to make them useful,
IMHO your package would be great only with the "Initial package" one, but
it's totally up to you how you make it.
Not diving into deep review, I will wait until your review on the functionality
of the program
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805 --- Comment #5 from josef radinger --- i think i have all your suggestions in place. yours josef new versions: Spec URL: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/temp/lolcat.spec SRPM URL: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/30/SRPMS/lolcat-1.0-5.fc30.src.rpm compiled version for f30 x86_64: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/30/x86_64/lolcat-1.0-5.fc30.x86_64.rpm compiled version for f30 i386: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/30/i386/lolcat-1.0-5.fc30.i686.rpm compiled version for f29 x86_64: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/29/x86_64/lolcat-1.0-5.fc29.x86_64.rpm compiled version for f29 i386: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/29/i386/lolcat-1.0-5.fc29.i686.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use a better name for your archive:
Source:
https://github.com/jaseg/lolcat/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- %setup -q lolcat-%{version} → %autosetup
- make %{?_smp_mflags} all → %make_build all
- Consider patching the Makefile to keep timestamps:
install: lolcat censor
$(INSTALL) lolcat $(DESTDIR)/bin/lolcat
$(INSTALL) censor $(DESTDIR)/bin/censor
and then use %make_install
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]: 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: "do What The Fuck you want to Public License (v2)", "Unknown or
generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/lolcat/review-
lolcat/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.
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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]: 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 lolcat
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is
[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805 --- Comment #3 from josef radinger --- thanks. fresh versions: Spec URL: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/temp/lolcat.spec SRPM URL: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/30/SRPMS/lolcat-1.0-4.fc30.src.rpm compiled version for f30 x86_64: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/30/x86_64/lolcat-1.0-4.fc30.x86_64.rpm compiled version for f30 i386: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/30/i386/lolcat-1.0-4.fc30.i686.rpm compiled version for f29 x86_64: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/29/x86_64/lolcat-1.0-4.fc29.x86_64.rpm compiled version for f29 i386: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/29/i386/lolcat-1.0-4.fc29.i686.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805
Artur Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
--- Comment #2 from Artur Iwicki ---
>%build
>make %{?_smp_mflags} all
Add "%set_build_flags" before calling make.
>mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/bin/
>make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/bin/ install
Use "%{_bindir}" instead of "/usr/bin". If you want to avoid mixing bash
variables and rpm variables, you can use "%{buildroot}%{_bindir}" for the whole
path.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805 --- Comment #1 from josef radinger --- Spec URL: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/temp/lolcat.spec SRPM URL: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/30/SRPMS/lolcat-1.0-3.fc30.src.rpm Description: lolcat is a colorful version of 'cat'. It is faster than python-lolcat and much faster than ruby-lolcat. Fedora Account System Username: cheese compiled version for f30 x86_64: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/30/x86_64/lolcat-1.0-3.fc30.x86_64.rpm compiled version for f30 i386: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/30/i386/lolcat-1.0-3.fc30.i386.rpm compiled version for f29 x86_64: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/29/x86_64/lolcat-1.0-3.fc29.x86_64.rpm compiled version for f29 i386: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/29/i386/lolcat-1.0-3.fc29.i386.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
