Bug 2333766

This will not successfully build until its dependencies are added or updated.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8439943
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2333766-libgedit-tepl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08439943-libgedit-tepl/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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.

Spec URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/libgedit-tepl.spec
SRPM URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/libgedit-tepl-6.12.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
Description: Tepl is a library that eases the development of GtkSourceView-based text editors and IDEs.  (Note: this is a rename of the 'tepl' package.)
Fedora Account System Username: yselkowitz

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8820158
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2333766-libgedit-tepl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08820158-libgedit-tepl/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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.

Spec URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/libgedit-tepl.spec
SRPM URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/libgedit-tepl-6.12.0-1.fc43.src.rpm

Builds are still blocked by prerequisites.

Prerequisites are now in a side tag.  CI still won't work but here's a scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130898934

Taking review.

Looks good, 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]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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 Lesser General Public License,
     Version 3". 63 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/rathann/build/review/libgedit-tepl/review-
     libgedit-tepl/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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[x]: 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 17266 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2252800 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libgedit-tepl-6.12.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          libgedit-tepl-devel-6.12.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          libgedit-tepl-6.12.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpf38mciwt')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

libgedit-tepl.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided tepl
libgedit-tepl-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided tepl-devel
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 21 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libgedit-tepl-debuginfo-6.12.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmponqvv4tw')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 





============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 3

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://download.gnome.org/sources/libgedit-tepl/6.12/libgedit-tepl-6.12.0.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 90874d755051199e25823623ff2772027f8664a39746fb82d0f8d44f12d2a3f2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 90874d755051199e25823623ff2772027f8664a39746fb82d0f8d44f12d2a3f2


Requires
--------
libgedit-tepl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
    libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libgedit-amtk-5.so.0()(64bit)
    libgedit-gfls-1.so.0()(64bit)
    libgedit-gtksourceview-300.so.3()(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libhandy-1.so.0()(64bit)
    libhandy-1.so.0(LIBHANDY_1_0)(64bit)
    libicui18n.so.76()(64bit)
    libicuuc.so.76()(64bit)
    libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libgedit-tepl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libgedit-tepl(x86-64)
    libgedit-tepl-6.so.2()(64bit)
    pkgconfig(gio-2.0)
    pkgconfig(gsettings-desktop-schemas)
    pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0)
    pkgconfig(icu-i18n)
    pkgconfig(icu-uc)
    pkgconfig(libgedit-amtk-5)
    pkgconfig(libgedit-gfls-1)
    pkgconfig(libgedit-gtksourceview-300)
    pkgconfig(libhandy-1)



Provides
--------
libgedit-tepl:
    libgedit-tepl
    libgedit-tepl(x86-64)
    libgedit-tepl-6.so.2()(64bit)

libgedit-tepl-devel:
    libgedit-tepl-devel
    libgedit-tepl-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libgedit-tepl-6)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libgedit-tepl --no-build --prebuilt
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Java, fonts, Python, R, Perl, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libgedit-tepl

FEDORA-2025-a0b416fb5a (gedit-48.1-1.fc42, gedit-plugins-48.1-1.fc42, and 5 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-a0b416fb5a

FEDORA-2025-a0b416fb5a has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-a0b416fb5a`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-a0b416fb5a

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

FEDORA-2025-a0b416fb5a (gedit-48.1-1.fc42, gedit-plugins-48.1-1.fc42, and 5 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.