https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047247 Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |jkadlcik(a)redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hello Qiyu, the Copr project no longer exists so the sources and spec aren't downloadable. Do you still want the package to be reviewed and added to Fedora? -- 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=2047247

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047247 --- Comment #2 from Qiyu Yan <yanqiyu01(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Yes, I updated links to srpm and spec file. -- 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=2047247

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047247 Qiyu Yan <yanqiyu01(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/softnet-stat/f... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/softnet-stat/f... Description: Parse the `/proc/net/softnet_stat` file into something more readable. Fedora Account System Username: yanqiyu and copr's fedora-review output: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/softnet-stat/f... -- 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=2047247

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047247 Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Thank you for the update. I think the package looks good now. 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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2047247-softnet-stat/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 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: [-]: 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). [x]: 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. [x]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3 softnet-stat-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/softnet-stat-2.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug softnet-stat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary softnet-stat softnet-stat-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation softnet-stat-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation softnet-stat-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/softnet-stat-2.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/softnet-stat-2.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug' softnet-stat-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/ac/66df298bc2fd97f8143d9400d44e01db399735 ../../../.build-id/ac/66df298bc2fd97f8143d9400d44e01db399735 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hjr3/softnet-stat/archive/refs/tags/v2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7a7f2725c0c2e7dfd87ac8b271de75166f8c56ca75198454740a866cd38b7121 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7a7f2725c0c2e7dfd87ac8b271de75166f8c56ca75198454740a866cd38b7121 Requires -------- softnet-stat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) softnet-stat-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): softnet-stat-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- softnet-stat: softnet-stat softnet-stat(x86-64) softnet-stat-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) softnet-stat-debuginfo softnet-stat-debuginfo(x86-64) softnet-stat-debugsource: softnet-stat-debugsource softnet-stat-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2047247 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Java, Python, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, C/C++, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=2047247

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047247 Qiyu Yan <yanqiyu01(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2022-09-02 07:09:48 --- Comment #7 from Qiyu Yan <yanqiyu01(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package built in rawhide, closing. Thanks for your 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=2047247