https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006765 Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pemensik(a)redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |pemensik(a)redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues ====== - Not latest release used - 1.0.3 available ===== 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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 Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "FSF All Permissive License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/2006765-libi2cd/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 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]: 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]: 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: [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libi2cd-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm libi2cd-devel-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm libi2cd-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm libi2cd-debugsource-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm libi2cd-1.0-1.fc36.src.rpm libi2cd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div libi2cd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libi2cd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libi2cd-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sstallion/libi2cd/archive/v1.0.tar.gz#/libi2cd-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 691dcc26bc69bc67abec219376306ba4e6c6f937aaa3716a4837ab772055628a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 691dcc26bc69bc67abec219376306ba4e6c6f937aaa3716a4837ab772055628a Requires -------- libi2cd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libi2cd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libi2cd(x86-64) libi2cd.so.0()(64bit) libi2cd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libi2cd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libi2cd: libi2cd libi2cd(x86-64) libi2cd.so.0()(64bit) libi2cd-devel: libi2cd-devel libi2cd-devel(x86-64) libi2cd-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libi2cd-debuginfo libi2cd-debuginfo(x86-64) libi2cd.so.0.0.0-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libi2cd-debugsource: libi2cd-debugsource libi2cd-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2006765 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, 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=2006765

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006765 Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(pemensik(a)redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #3 from Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Yes, there are 3 releases not included and they are about 3 months old. I think you will update spec anyway, is it too much to ask that before giving review+? Also there are some tests. It seems they need some device, but I think %bcond_with check might enable them on manual 'fedpkg local --with check' rebuilds. Could that be included but disabled on normal builds too? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006765

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006765 Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #5 from Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com&gt; --- I don't like your attitude. You refuse even simple improvements to spec file, because it is not mandatory. Well, it is not mandatory for me as a reviewer to give you review+. I have seriously considered just unassigning myself and leaving such review to someone else. You were helpful to me when I were playing with Raspberry Pi on fedora-arm channel. I would finish the review as thanks for that. But I don't think I requested something extra. I would not finish it for someone else. I think rebase and sftp fedorapeople.org; mput *.spec is not too much to ask. I think having fedpkg local --with check prepared for rebases is useful. I would want to have it in my package, but you would maintain this package. It would simplify basic test on a real device. Passing the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006765

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006765 Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-01-23 12:06:33 --- Comment #7 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #5) Me having a different opinion to yours doesn't mean I have a bad attitude. There's a difference. With the update you put there I would have preferred you did walk away but here we are. A minor bugfix release won't substantially change the package and hence it won't impact the review. The review has sat there for 4 months to update it for each minor bump takes time and that IMO is a waste. Now if there was a major bump with API change I would have completely updated it, probably long before you came along. In the case of the check, from my experience (I have been packaging rpms since 1996) if it's not run all the time it just rots as in reality no one runs it locally. In the case of running it on say a VM which doesn't have i2c (and I do a lot of building on VMs) it would fail. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006765