Bug 1936494

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63350773

Hello Aleksei. Fuzzel seems like ready to push for >= f34. If you still interesting in it i appreciate if you review and co-maintain it.

(In reply to Artem from comment #2)
> Hello Aleksei. Fuzzel seems like ready to push for >= f34. If you still
> interesting in it i appreciate if you review and co-maintain it.

Sure. I kind of forgot about that one while waiting for Bug1912856 :(

---

Please, add `BuildRequires: tllist-static`. Apparently, it is required for header-only libraries even if `pkgconfig(tllist)` is already in place; I fixed that for `foot` but forgot to update other specs.

> %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.*

The Guidelines example does not have that last dot: `%{_mandir}/man1/foo.1*`. It's likely made that way to match even uncompressed files.

Looks good otherwise, will do a formal review later.

Great. Thanks.

New spec and srpm:

https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/fuzzel.spec
https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/fuzzel-1.5.1-2.fc34.src.rpm

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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Ok, with /usr/share/zsh being a known exception required to install the completion files.
[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 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]: 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 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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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: fuzzel-1.5.1-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          fuzzel-debuginfo-1.5.1-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          fuzzel-debugsource-1.5.1-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          fuzzel-1.5.1-2.fc35.src.rpm
fuzzel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wlroots -> roots
fuzzel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rofi's -> roof's
fuzzel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US drun -> drub, drum, dun
fuzzel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen
fuzzel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdin -> stein, stain, stdio
fuzzel.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wlroots -> roots
fuzzel.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rofi's -> roof's
fuzzel.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US drun -> drub, drum, dun
fuzzel.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen
fuzzel.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdin -> stein, stain, stdio
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: fuzzel-debuginfo-1.5.1-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
fuzzel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wlroots -> roots
fuzzel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rofi's -> roof's
fuzzel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US drun -> drub, drum, dun
fuzzel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen
fuzzel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdin -> stein, stain, stdio
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://codeberg.org/dnkl/fuzzel/archive/1.5.1.tar.gz#/fuzzel-1.5.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8a7394a32664638c91e865d63cf5d5a34d8caf4594854ed4867afae1a6f38eb7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8a7394a32664638c91e865d63cf5d5a34d8caf4594854ed4867afae1a6f38eb7


Requires
--------
fuzzel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
    libfcft.so.3()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpixman-1.so.0()(64bit)
    libpng16.so.16()(64bit)
    libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit)
    librsvg-2.so.2()(64bit)
    libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit)
    libwayland-cursor.so.0()(64bit)
    libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit)
    libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

fuzzel-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

fuzzel-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
fuzzel:
    fuzzel
    fuzzel(x86-64)

fuzzel-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    fuzzel-debuginfo
    fuzzel-debuginfo(x86-64)

fuzzel-debugsource:
    fuzzel-debugsource
    fuzzel-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1936494
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, Haskell, Java, Perl, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fuzzel

FEDORA-2021-fbd8451f61 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fbd8451f61

FEDORA-2021-fbd8451f61 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-fbd8451f61 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fbd8451f61

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-fbd8451f61 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.