Bug 2272048

Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are:

- You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description
  or any of your comments
- The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS
- The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified
  in the ticket summary


---
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.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION
- Package requires R-core.


===== 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: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 43 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora/2272048-R-niarules/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/R/library, /usr/share/R
[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
[ ]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.

===== 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).
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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]: 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.

R:
[x]: The %check macro is present
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
     Note: Latest upstream version is 0.1.0, packaged version is 0.1.0

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: R-niarules-0.1.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          R-niarules-0.1.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpdoyxle1i')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

R-niarules.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 80%
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

R-niarules.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 80%
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=niarules&version=0.1.0#/niarules_0.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7cec25015684e8ec56811875745f32c238911131c82b5ada4b0c10ae30e9270f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7cec25015684e8ec56811875745f32c238911131c82b5ada4b0c10ae30e9270f


Requires
--------
R-niarules (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    R(ABI)
    R(stats)
    R(utils)
    R-core



Provides
--------
R-niarules:
    R(niarules)
    R-niarules



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2272048
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, R
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Java, Perl, Haskell, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Warning in the build log:
* checking PDF version of manual ... WARNING
LaTeX errors when creating PDF version.
This typically indicates Rd problems.
LaTeX errors found:
! LaTeX Error: File `inconsolata.sty' not found.
Type X to quit or <RETURN> to proceed,
or enter new name. (Default extension: sty)
! Emergency stop.
<read *> 
         
l.303 ^^M
         
!  ==> Fatal error occurred, no output PDF file produced!
* checking PDF version of manual without index ... OK

b) Other things seem ok.

Thanks, Benson!

That is a good point about the R-core. It is included now. Inconsolata.sty has also been added.

The other issue is false positives. Please see discussion: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567

New versions are attached:

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/main/R-niarules.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/raw/main/R-niarules-0.1.0-1.fc39.src.rpm

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION


===== 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: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 43 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora/2272048-R-niarules/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/R, /usr/share/R/library
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
[x]: Package requires R-core.

===== 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).
[ ]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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]: 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.

R:
[x]: The %check macro is present
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
     Note: Latest upstream version is 0.1.0, packaged version is 0.1.0

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: R-niarules-0.1.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          R-niarules-0.1.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpvrc95ow_')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

R-niarules.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 80%
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

R-niarules.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 80%
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=niarules&version=0.1.0#/niarules_0.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7cec25015684e8ec56811875745f32c238911131c82b5ada4b0c10ae30e9270f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7cec25015684e8ec56811875745f32c238911131c82b5ada4b0c10ae30e9270f


Requires
--------
R-niarules (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    R(ABI)
    R(stats)
    R(utils)
    R-core



Provides
--------
R-niarules:
    R(niarules)
    R-niarules



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2272048
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: R, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, PHP, Haskell, Python, fonts, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) As per previous review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567, do not include R-core.
b) Above change can be made before importing. Approved.
c) If time allows, maybe make a pull request to improve fedora-review for R packages.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-niarules

Benson, thanks for your time!

FEDORA-2024-ceb8e43d34 (R-niarules-0.1.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ceb8e43d34

FEDORA-2024-dc13726293 (R-niarules-0.1.0-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dc13726293

FEDORA-2024-f61c303fe1 (R-niarules-0.1.0-1.fc38) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f61c303fe1

FEDORA-2024-ceb8e43d34 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-ceb8e43d34`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ceb8e43d34

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

FEDORA-2024-dc13726293 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-dc13726293`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dc13726293

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

FEDORA-2024-f61c303fe1 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-f61c303fe1`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f61c303fe1

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

FEDORA-2024-dc13726293 (R-niarules-0.1.0-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-f61c303fe1 (R-niarules-0.1.0-1.fc38) has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-ceb8e43d34 (R-niarules-0.1.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.