[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2017-08-15 10:36:05 |2017-09-06 10:49:29 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- tcl-tclnagios-1.3-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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
[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- tcl-tclnagios-1.3-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2017-a3c6361bc6 -- 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
[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- tcl-tclnagios-1.3-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-a3c6361bc6 -- 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
[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073 Wart changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-08-15 10:36:05 -- 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
[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tcl-tclnagios -- 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
[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tcl-tclnagios -- 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
[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST -- 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
[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
This is good for me, tcllib is indeed a tcl library, and everything else is
good to go.
Package accepted.
Thanks for your work.
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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/tcl-tclnagios
/review-tcl-tclnagios/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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
[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073
--- Comment #4 from Wart ---
Many thanks for the review. It's been a few years since I last submitted a
package, and it seems there have been some tweaks in the guidelines since then.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
> Hello,
>
> A few thing:
>
[...]
> - I don't understand why you define:
> %global commit0 1009914f0683f1c7fe9f94ed2cbe895008c5e6d1
> %global gittag0 v1.3
> %global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7})
It was unnecessary clutter from the git source guidelines. I've removed these.
> - You can drop the 'tcl' in both BuildRequires and Requires as the others
> dependencies already depends on it.
> - The BR "tcl-devel" could be required with pkgconfig: pkgconfig(tcl)
Technically, this would work, but to be pedantic, the package doesn't actually
use the pkgconfig file from tcl-devel to build, it uses tclConfig.sh. I'd like
to keep the BR as 'tcl-devel' to preserve that distinction.
> - You have a Rpmlint error:
> tcl-tclnagios.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcllib
>
> You shouldn't require directly the dependency to tcllib, it's automatically
> handled by dnf.
In this case, it's not. tcllib is a script library, not a shared library, so
the automatic dependency generation doesn't find it (I verified this behavior
in a scratch build). rpmlint is just confused because of the string 'lib' in
the name 'tcllib'.
All of the other issues noted have been fixed.
Here is the revised spec/srpm:
SPEC: https://wart.fedorapeople.org/tcl-tclnagios.spec
SRPM: https://wart.fedorapeople.org/tcl-tclnagios-1.3-4.fc27.src.rpm
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21128126
--
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
[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com 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
[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Hello,
A few thing:
- The Group: tag is not needed. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
- Similarly, no need for %clean, no need for rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in
%install
- No need for %defattr(-,root,root,-) in %files either
- I don't understand why you define:
%global commit0 1009914f0683f1c7fe9f94ed2cbe895008c5e6d1
%global gittag0 v1.3
%global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7})
If you package the version 1.3, you don't need all this, just use %{version}:
https://github.com/gitwart/%{shortname}/archive/v%{version}/%{shortname}-%{version}.tar.gz
- You can drop the 'tcl' in both BuildRequires and Requires as the others
dependencies already depends on it.
- The BR "tcl-devel" could be required with pkgconfig: pkgconfig(tcl)
- "make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" should be replaced with the
%make_install macro which takes care of the buildroot
- Thus, "BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)" is not needed
either.
- You have a Rpmlint error:
tcl-tclnagios.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcllib
You shouldn't require directly the dependency to tcllib, it's automatically
handled by dnf.
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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/tcl-tclnagios
/review-tcl-tclnagios/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: 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]: 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.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 vali
[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073 --- Comment #2 from Wart --- Cleaned up the remaining meaningful rpmlint warnings: SPEC: https://wart.fedorapeople.org/tcl-tclnagios.spec SRPM: https://wart.fedorapeople.org/tcl-tclnagios-1.3-3.fc27.src.rpm Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2087 -- 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
[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073 --- Comment #1 from Wart --- Updated spec and src rpm to clean up a couple of rpmlint warnings: Updated SPEC: https://wart.fedorapeople.org/tcl-tclnagios.spec Updated SRPM: https://wart.fedorapeople.org/tcl-tclnagios-1.3-2.fc27.src.rpm Build result in koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21110224 -- 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
