https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1847220 Fabian Affolter <mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter <mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch&gt; --- Can you please check about the obsolete m4 macros before importing? Not sure if that's a false-positive. Thanks Otherwise looks good, package APPROVED. 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "BSD (unspecified)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1847220-bgpq4/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 40960 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]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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: bgpq4-0.0.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm bgpq4-debuginfo-0.0.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm bgpq4-debugsource-0.0.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm bgpq4-0.0.6-1.fc33.src.rpm bgpq4.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/bgpq4.8.gz 137: warning: macro `RS' not defined bgpq4.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/bgpq4.8.gz 157: warning: macro `RE' not defined 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: bgpq4-debuginfo-0.0.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. bgpq4-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/bgp/bgpq4 <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. bgpq4.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/bgp/bgpq4 <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. bgpq4-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/bgp/bgpq4 <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bgp/bgpq4/archive/0.0.6/bgpq4-0.0.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 612d8eb7c3de07712e43b3e03e3b9d6b9b87e14333e56df3ccf198675a87a642 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 612d8eb7c3de07712e43b3e03e3b9d6b9b87e14333e56df3ccf198675a87a642 Requires -------- bgpq4 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) bgpq4-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bgpq4-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- bgpq4: bgpq4 bgpq4(x86-64) bgpq4-debuginfo: bgpq4-debuginfo bgpq4-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) bgpq4-debugsource: bgpq4-debugsource bgpq4-debugsource(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: bgpq4-0.0.6/configure.ac:4 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1847220 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, Python, R, Java 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=1847220 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla <gwync(a)protonmail.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bgpq4 -- 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=1847220 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-ea4784c987 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ea4784c987 -- 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=1847220 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-015d94092f has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-015d94092f -- 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=1847220 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-2ce181e3ab 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-2020-2ce181e3ab 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=1847220 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-ea4784c987 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 install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-ea4784c987 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ea4784c987 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=1847220 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-7fcbb78eb7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-7fcbb78eb7 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=1847220 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-ea4784c987 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=1847220 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-2ce181e3ab has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 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