https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230274 --- Comment #4 from Jeff Backus <jeff.backus@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ingvar Hagelund from comment #2) > Jeff wrote: > > * Please use the license file provided, ./debian/copyright, instead of > > extracting from the code. > > Fixed Looks good, thanks! > > * Please mark the license file with the %license macro instead of %doc. > > Fixed Looks good. > > * Source URL does not comply with guidelines: > > Fixed Looks good. > > * Please provide Koji scratch builds for all supported releases (i.e. F21, F22, Rawhide) > > Scratch builds: > > rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10197639 > f23: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10197647 > f22: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10197657 > f21: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10197665 > epel7: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10197672 > epel6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10197675 > epel5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10197561 All look good. > > * Build ignores compiler flags. The Makefile overrides CFLAGS and LDFLAGS. > > Patched the Makefile, so it does not set LDFLAGS, and sets CFLAGS like this. > > CFLAGS += -Wall -DSSHPATH=\"$(SSHPATH)\" -DSCPPATH=\"$(SCPPATH)\" > > Is this good enough? Yes, looks good. An alternative to creating a patch is to use sed to scrub the Makefile. Not asking you to do so, just an FYI. > > * Seems to work? I was unable to actually get it to execute remote commands... > > Works, at least for me: > > $ cat test_hosts > veierland > login > > $ mpssh -f test_hosts -v "whoami; hostname -s" > Reading hosts from : test_hosts > MPSSH - Mass Parallel Ssh Ver.1.3.3 > (c)2005-2013 Nikolay Denev <ndenev@xxxxxxxxx> > > [*] read (2) hosts from the list > [*] executing "whoami; hostname -s" as user "ingvar" > [*] verbose mode enabled > [*] spawning 2 parallel ssh sessions > > ingvar@veierland -> ingvar > ingvar@veierland -> veierland > ingvar@ login -> ingvar > ingvar@ login -> login > > Done. 2 hosts processed. Thanks for the clarification. Works now. Issue was between the keyboard and the chair. Thanks for addressing my previous concerns. Package looks good. Only new-ish concern I'll raise is that you have a couple of install commands without -p to preserve timestamps. I apologize, I mentioned it in the body of the review but I forgot to list it in the highlights last time. As this is under the SHOULD category, I'll give you the option of fixing it but I won't require it. Just let me know one way or the other. Regards, Jeff 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]: 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/storage/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/mpssh/review- mpssh/licensecheck.txt [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. [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 2 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]: 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: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed Package is also for EPEL. [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Need to add -p to install command. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mpssh-1.3.3-2.fc22.i686.rpm mpssh-1.3.3-2.fc22.src.rpm mpssh.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/mpssh.1.gz 70: warning: macro `list-type-stack0' not defined 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mpssh-debuginfo-1.3.3-2.fc22.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- mpssh.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/mpssh.1.gz 70: warning: macro `list-type-stack0' not defined 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- mpssh (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6 openssh-clients rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- mpssh: mpssh mpssh(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ndenev/mpssh/archive/39b7ceece0e3daf675444ec711efd9fc534c100a/mpssh-39b7ceece0e3daf675444ec711efd9fc534c100a.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 136c629ea8af2419925ac92ed55783a5d81f7b89562686d48256f79db6a75b05 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 136c629ea8af2419925ac92ed55783a5d81f7b89562686d48256f79db6a75b05 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n mpssh Buildroot used: fedora-22-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review