https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 Alessio <alciregi(a)posteo.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/bashtop/bashtop.spec SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/bashtop/bashtop-0.8.15-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Resource monitor written in bash that shows usage and stats for processor, memory, disks, network and processes. Fedora Account System Username: alciregi -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 Artem <ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Artem <ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com&gt; --- 1. License should be 'ASL 2.0'. 2. Source0: https://github.com/aristocratos/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{ve... -> 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.t... : 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 -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 --- Comment #4 from Artem <ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Requires: awk Requires: coreutils Requires: grep Requires: procps-ng Requires: sed Also need here. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 --- Comment #7 from Alessio <alciregi(a)posteo.net&gt; --- 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. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 --- Comment #9 from Alessio <alciregi(a)posteo.net&gt; --- (In reply to Artem from comment #8) Like there I also added %build # None required Whoops, you are right Thanks. Done. Thank you very much. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-60de772c5c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-60de772c5c -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-90c636358d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-90c636358d -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 --- Comment #15 from Germano Massullo <germano.massullo(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Hi Alessio, do you have any plan to release this package on EPEL too? -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- 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. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 Alessio <alciregi(a)posteo.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(alciregi(a)posteo.n | |et) | --- Comment #18 from Alessio <alciregi(a)posteo.net&gt; --- (In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #15) 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 -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 --- Comment #20 from Alessio <alciregi(a)posteo.net&gt; --- (In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #19) 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)? -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- 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. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-05-02 03:45:27 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- 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. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- 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. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- 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. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- 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. -- 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