Spec URL: http://people.centos.org/jperrin/srpms/bash-completion-extras.spec SRPM URL: http://people.centos.org/jperrin/srpms/bash-completion-extras-2.1-6.el7.centos.src.rpm Description: The bash-completion package included in EL7 does not include many completions for commonly used binaries included in the distribution( e.g file, dd, getent, ip, etc). This package (derived from the EL7 spec and srpm) restores completions for binaries included in the base OS. The patch difference with the original spec is intended to be minimal to allow for easy updating, and has added the base package bash-completion as a dependency. This package is intended strictly for EPEL7, as it is not needed in upstream fedora, and not applicable to EL6 where bash-completion is already provided via EPEL6. Fedora Account System Username: jperrin
from a quick review you need to either drop the epoch or add it to the changelog
Done. I added the epoch to the changelog.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: bash-completion-extras Short Description: Additional completion scripts for bash Upstream URL: http://bash-completion.alioth.debian.org/ Owners: jperrin Branches: epel7 InitialCC:
(In reply to Jim Perrin from comment #3) > New Package SCM Request > ======================= > Package Name: bash-completion-extras > Short Description: Additional completion scripts for bash > Upstream URL: http://bash-completion.alioth.debian.org/ > Owners: jperrin > Branches: epel7 > InitialCC: You need to wait for Dennis to finish the review before this package can be added to Fedora.
review is not yet complete
My fault. read the email incorrectly. Updated srpm: http://people.centos.org/jperrin/srpms/bash-completion-extras-2.1-7.el7.centos.src.rpm Updated spec: http://people.centos.org/jperrin/srpms/bash-completion-extras.spec These have the required epoch addition in the changelog now.
Either something is wrong with the encoding of the spec file, the web server is messed up, or we found a bug in fedora-review (or maybe python!) :) $ fedora-review -b 1129505 -m epel-7-x86_64 INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 1129505 INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1129505 INFO: --> SRPM url: http://people.centos.org/jperrin/srpms/bash-completion-extras-2.1-7.el7.centos.src.rpm INFO: --> Spec url: http://people.centos.org/jperrin/srpms/bash-completion-extras.spec INFO: Using review directory: /home/admiller/reviews/1129505-bash-completion-extras INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files error: line 9: Illegal char ':' in: Release: 7error: ERROR: "Can't parse specfile: can't parse specfile\n" (logs in /home/admiller/.cache/fedora-review.log)
I got the same error after editing the spec-file of gedit-plugin-git. Before Igot an error about a bad %if-condition: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256479#c5 . In my case the %dist-tag was expanded to someting like "Release: ...", I do not recall what comes after the colon (I added an %echo to debug}. Which mock-configuration did you use ? It happend for me with epel-7-x86_64, and it did not happen always. I ignored the error, because it happened after manually editing the spec-file and it did not happen all the time, so I thought I messed something up. Using the same spec-file with mock directly did not lead to such errors.
Oh I just saw the bugs-title, so it seems to be related to the mock-configuration. I will test this review also.
Looks like we are bitten by this bug; https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241655#c8 Should be fixed in update-testing.
Enabling epel-testing in mock config and recreating the mock-root makes fedora-review workagain for epel7
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/admiller/reviews/1129505-bash- completion-extras/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/bash- completion/completions(tig, cmake, bzr, rpmdevtools, mercurial, createrepo, vagrant, python-django-bash-completion, bash-completion, firewalld, subversion, rolekit, rpmlint, yum, libappstream-glib, source-highlight, git, gvfs, glib2) [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]: 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 112640 bytes in 5 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define rhelname bash- completion [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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: bash-completion-extras-2.1-7.el7.centos.noarch.rpm bash-completion-extras-2.1-7.el7.centos.src.rpm bash-completion-extras.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1:2.1-7 ['1:2.1-7.el7.centos', '1:2.1-7.centos'] bash-completion-extras.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/pigz gzip 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- bash-completion-extras.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1:2.1-7 ['1:2.1-7.el7.centos', '1:2.1-7.centos'] bash-completion-extras.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/pigz gzip 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- bash-completion-extras (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bash bash-completion Provides -------- bash-completion-extras: bash-completion-extras Source checksums ---------------- http://bash-completion.alioth.debian.org/files/bash-completion-2.1.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2b606804a7d5f823380a882e0f7b6c8a37b0e768e72c3d4107c51fbe8a46ae4f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2b606804a7d5f823380a882e0f7b6c8a37b0e768e72c3d4107c51fbe8a46ae4f Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1129505 -m epel-7-testing-x86_64 Buildroot used: epel-7-testing-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 =============== NOTES ====================== The only issue I see the that %define is used instead of %global, if you fix that then I'm good with approving. Jim, I can also sponsor you as a packager.
Updated and release bumped. I cleaned up a couple instances of trailing whitespace as well.
APPROVED
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/bash-completion-extras
Pushed to EPEL 7 stable on 2016-03-04. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/bash-completion-extras-2.1-8.el7