Bug 2517242

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.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/main/hifi-dvd-pro.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/releases/download/v1.0.0/hifi-dvd-pro-1.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10870092
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2517242-hifi-dvd-pro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10870092-hifi-dvd-pro/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://raw.githubusercontent.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/main/hifi-dvd-pro.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/releases/download/v1.0.0/hifi-dvd-pro-1.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10870149
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2517242-hifi-dvd-pro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10870149-hifi-dvd-pro/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://raw.githubusercontent.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/main/hifi-dvd-pro.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/releases/download/v1.0.0/hifi-dvd-pro-1.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10870171
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2517242-hifi-dvd-pro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10870171-hifi-dvd-pro/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://raw.githubusercontent.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/main/hifi-dvd-pro.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/releases/download/v1.0.0/hifi-dvd-pro-1.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]

Created attachment 2154731 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10870171 to 10870196

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10870196
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2517242-hifi-dvd-pro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10870196-hifi-dvd-pro/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://raw.githubusercontent.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/main/hifi-dvd-pro.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/releases/download/v1.0.0/hifi-dvd-pro-1.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10870223
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2517242-hifi-dvd-pro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10870223-hifi-dvd-pro/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://raw.githubusercontent.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/main/hifi-dvd-pro.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/releases/download/v1.0.0/hifi-dvd-pro-1.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10870286
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2517242-hifi-dvd-pro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10870286-hifi-dvd-pro/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://raw.githubusercontent.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/main/hifi-dvd-pro.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/releases/download/v1.0.1/hifi-dvd-pro-1.0.1-1.fc44.src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]

Created attachment 2154734 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10870286 to 10870308

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10870308
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2517242-hifi-dvd-pro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10870308-hifi-dvd-pro/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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
==============

Issues:
- Summary is slightly too long (over 79 characters). Consider shortening it to:
  "Interactive Bash script for creating professional Hi-Fi Audio DVDs"
- Small typo check: change ".iso" to uppercase ".ISO" in %description to clear rpmlint spelling warning.

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


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPL-3.0-or-later).
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[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.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: License file included in %license.
[x]: The License field is 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 %{buildroot}.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} 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 does not use %makeinstall.
[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.
[x]: Spec file name matches the spec package %{name}.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Documentation size is small (no need for -doc subpackage).
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package builds cleanly in mock.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version (1.0.1) is packaged.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Spec uses %global instead of %define.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: hifi-dvd-pro-1.0.1-1.fc46.noarch.rpm
          hifi-dvd-pro-1.0.1-1.fc46.src.rpm
hifi-dvd-pro.noarch: E: summary-too-long
hifi-dvd-pro.src: E: summary-too-long
hifi-dvd-pro.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hifi-dvd-pro
hifi-dvd-pro.spec: W: no-%check-section
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings.

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/archive/refs/tags/v1.0.1.tar.gz#/hifi-dvd-pro-1.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 19ac1c84db855a13fb83a13ff1fea31ede00382bb47254cbe3b86823f30b9cf5
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 19ac1c84db855a13fb83a13ff1fea31ede00382bb47254cbe3b86823f30b9cf5

Shorten the summary to, for example, “Authoring tool for professional Hi-Fi audio DVDs,” 
since the maximum length is 80 characters.

Fixed, thanks! Updated the Summary in the spec file to be under 80 characters.

Reasons for file-level dependencies (/usr/bin/ffmpeg):
Resolution in official Fedora build environments (Mock/Koji):
In official Fedora repositories there is no package named ffmpeg; only ffmpeg-free exists .

Using BuildRequires: ffmpeg will fail in Fedora build systems because the package ffmpeg is not found.

please use:
Requires:       /usr/bin/ffmpeg

Thanks! I have updated the spec file to use Requires: /usr/bin/ffmpeg instead of ffmpeg.

I unfortunately completely overlooked that you’re still looking for a sponsor.
Since I’m not a sponsor myself yet, we unfortunately can’t proceed with the package review here.
You also mention: “This is my first package in Fedora, so I will need a sponsor.”

Thank you for your time and for reviewing the package anyway! I will leave the ticket updated with the FE-NEEDSPONSOR flag and look for a sponsor through the Fedora community channels.