Bug 2262593

Summary: Review Request: furnace - a multi-system chiptune tracker compatible with DefleMask modules
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Felix Wang <topazus>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Beck Liu <shattuckite>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: package-review, shattuckite
Target Milestone: ---Flags: shattuckite: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-02-05 16:48:24 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6985696 to 6986281 none

Description Felix Wang 2024-02-04 05:46:47 UTC
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/furnace.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/furnace-0.6.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
Description: a multi-system chiptune tracker compatible with DefleMask modules
Fedora Account System Username: topazus

Comment 1 Beck Liu 2024-02-04 08:39:43 UTC
[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2024-02-05 03:31:24 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6985689
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2262593-furnace/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06985689-furnace/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file exo-license.txt is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND Zlib AND Unlicense AND GPL-2.1-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND MIT'.
  Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
- Documentation size is 7351624 bytes in 288 files. 
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 3 Fedora Review Service 2024-02-05 03:35:47 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6985696
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2262593-furnace/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06985696-furnace/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file exo-license.txt is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND Zlib AND Unlicense AND GPL-2.1-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND MIT'.
  Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
- Documentation size is 7351624 bytes in 288 files. 
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 4 Beck Liu 2024-02-05 10:28:19 UTC
> - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND Zlib AND Unlicense AND GPL-2.1-or-later > AND GPL-2.0-only AND MIT'.
>   Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1

It should be GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND Zlib AND Unlicense AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND MIT.

> - Documentation size is 7351624 bytes in 288 files. 
>   Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation

Consider creating -doc subpackage that stores the documentation with large size.

> [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners:
>      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/1024x1024,
>      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/1024x1024/apps

Consider remove the /usr/share/icons/hicolor/1024x1024 directory.

Comment 6 Fedora Review Service 2024-02-05 11:39:25 UTC
Created attachment 2015196 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6985696 to 6986281

Comment 7 Fedora Review Service 2024-02-05 11:39:27 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6986281
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2262593-furnace/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06986281-furnace/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file exo-license.txt is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 8 Beck Liu 2024-02-05 12:35:00 UTC
Approved.

Comment 10 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-02-05 15:48:58 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/furnace

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2024-02-05 16:47:04 UTC
FEDORA-2024-eddf1f84e7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-eddf1f84e7

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2024-02-05 16:48:24 UTC
FEDORA-2024-eddf1f84e7 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.