Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables2.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables2-1.3.4-0.fc21.src.rpm Description: The ticables library is able to handle the different link cables designed for Texas Instruments's graphing calculators (also called handhelds) in a fairly transparent fashion. With this library, the developer does not have to worry about the different link cables' characteristics as well as the different platforms. The library provides a complete API which is very easy to use and makes things easier. Fedora Account System Username: tc01 A general disclaimer: there's a lot of changelog at the bottom of this spec file. That's because two years ago (approximately), I was not a sponsored Fedora packager and the tilp2 software and its libraries were not compliant with Fedora packaging guidelines. I wrote these spec files and worked with the maintainers to fix these bugs. Now that the major problems have been fixed, I'd like to try to actually get these RPMs into Fedora. For this specific package, I am also not really sure what the right way is to package udev rules for Fedora; the included libticables rules file was taken from an Arch AUR pkgbuild.
Hello Ben, this is a INFORMAL REVIEW , i'm not a package sponsor, but i can help you to solved some warnings or issues. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Warnings libticables2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ticables -> ti cables, ti-cables, timetables libticables2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US handhelds -> handholds, handhold libticables2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libticables2/html/style.css libticables2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libticables -> impracticable libticables2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libticables2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libticables2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ticables -> ti cables, ti-cables, timetables libticables2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US handhelds -> handholds, handhold libticables2.src: W: invalid-url Source1: http://venus.arosser.com/fedora/tilp/69-libticables.rules HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) In your %description change "ticable" to ti cables, ti-cables or timetables. 2) In your %description change "handhelds" to handholds, handhold or similar 3) Please the Source1, because the file is not available ( re upload) 4) Please add Documentation to the spec "README", "LICENSE" , and later add this to the spec. example %doc README LICENSE 5) W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib => i'm sure about this, maybe you can pass this or please visit this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436500 6) W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding. please read this http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding I hope this info can be useful Regards Ben :)
Carlos, Note rpmlint spelling-error warning messages are based on the hunspell english dictionary and it tries to give you other options to the given word which may or may not be always correct suggestion. so you should not ask in review to correct each and every spelling-error message. Wherever applies you should ask. We have now %license macro for license files so avoid using %doc for license files.
1- %define tilp_version 1.17 %define _udevdir /lib/udev/rules.d http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define Why /lib/udev/rules.d and not %{_prefix}/lib/udev/rules.d ? 2- Release: 0%{?dist} http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag 3- cd docs make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} Compact version is make -C docs install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} 4- mkdir -p %{buildroot}/lib/udev/rules.d/ cp %SOURCE1 %{buildroot}%{_udevdir}/69-libticables.rules Compact (without 'mkdir' command) and correct version is cp -a %SOURCE1 %{buildroot}%{_udevdir}/69-libticables.rules 5- %lang(fr) %{_datadir}/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/libticables2.mo http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables2.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables2-1.3.4-1.fc21.src.rpm Fixed all of those except for the "cp -a" one; that did not appear to work. I did add the -a flag but it did not automatically create the directories and rpmbuild exited with an error code, so I just reintroduced the mkdir line (but changed it to use %{_udevdir}. I also added a doc subpackage for HTML documentation.
- -doc is a standalone package that must include a license file. - Files LGPLv2+ licensed are not involved in the compilation. Therefore no additional license is required. - %{_pkgdocdir} (/usr/share/doc/libticables2 expanded) is not owned. - /usr/lib/udev/rules.d and /usr/lib/udev are directories owned by systemd. They should not be owned by this package. But /usr/include/tilp2 is included in libticonv-devel package that seems not required by this package. I think /usr/include/tilp2 may be co-owned between libticonv-devel and libticables2-devel. - %define macros are still used. - Tests are available. Please, check. 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 %doc. Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1186501-libticables2/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/libticables2, /usr/include/tilp2 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev, /usr/share/doc/libticables2, /usr/include/tilp2, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d [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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [!]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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. ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libticables2-doc [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [!]: %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 tilp_version 1.17, %define _udevdir %{_prefix}/lib/udev/rules.d [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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: libticables2-1.3.4-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libticables2-devel-1.3.4-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libticables2-doc-1.3.4-1.fc23.noarch.rpm libticables2-1.3.4-1.fc23.src.rpm libticables2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ticables -> ti cables, ti-cables, timetables libticables2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US handhelds -> handholds, handhold libticables2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libticables -> impracticable libticables2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libticables2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libticables2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ticables -> ti cables, ti-cables, timetables libticables2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US handhelds -> handholds, handhold 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- libticables2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libticables2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libticables2(x86-64) pkgconfig(glib-2.0) libticables2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libticables2: libticables2 libticables2(x86-64) libticables2.so.6()(64bit) libticables2-devel: libticables2-devel libticables2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(ticables2) libticables2-doc: libticables2-doc Source checksums ---------------- http://sourceforge.net/projects/tilp/files/tilp2-linux/tilp2-1.17/libticables2-1.3.4.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 45cae91ad9ee1cc2ebc0f5865923ff77f1e0adf0793d3010eeb802efc140e5b0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 45cae91ad9ee1cc2ebc0f5865923ff77f1e0adf0793d3010eeb802efc140e5b0 http://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/69-libticables.rules : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e14a08b6a0c03f55c0f44de79de8896f0be5e8f7ccd5dd94f800c798f4fe79f8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e14a08b6a0c03f55c0f44de79de8896f0be5e8f7ccd5dd94f800c798f4fe79f8 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1186501 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
I can fix the other things. For the ownership of /usr/lib/rules/udev.d, does that just mean the package should BuildRequires: systemd?
(In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #6) > For the ownership of /usr/lib/rules/udev.d, does that just mean the package > should BuildRequires: systemd? No; systemd is a system package in any case.
Alright; I believe I've fixed these issues. Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables2.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables2-1.3.4-2.fc21.src.rpm
(In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #8) > Alright; I believe I've fixed these issues. > > Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables2.spec > SRPM URL: > https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables2-1.3.4-2.fc21.src.rpm Test fails on rawhide: make: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/libticables2-1.3.4/tests' make check-TESTS make[1]: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/libticables2-1.3.4/tests' /bin/sh: line 5: 5925 Segmentation fault (core dumped) ${dir}$tst FAIL: torture_ticables ================================================= 1 of 1 test failed Please report to tilp-users.net ================================================= Makefile:392: recipe for target 'check-TESTS' failed make[1]: *** [check-TESTS] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/libticables2-1.3.4/tests' Makefile:515: recipe for target 'check-am' failed make: *** [check-am] Error 2 make: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/libticables2-1.3.4/tests' error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.xEsYTp (%check)
I think the tests are failing as a result of running inside a chroot (probably because they try to do something with USB?), but I'm not sure... I tested in mock myself just now and torture_ticables segfaulted in both a rawhide and a F21 chroot, but they passed on my actual, physical F21 machine. (And they were passing on this machine when I claimed everything was working). Suggestions? Is it acceptable here to just not run the tests in the specfile or should I investigate further and work on getting this fixed upstream? I mean, the latter *should* be done anyway, I'm wondering if the former is acceptable for the moment.
(In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #10) > I think the tests are failing as a result of running inside a chroot > (probably because they try to do something with USB?), but I'm not sure... > > I tested in mock myself just now and torture_ticables segfaulted in both a > rawhide and a F21 chroot, but they passed on my actual, physical F21 > machine. (And they were passing on this machine when I claimed everything > was working). > > Suggestions? Is it acceptable here to just not run the tests in the specfile > or should I investigate further and work on getting this fixed upstream? I > mean, the latter *should* be done anyway, I'm wondering if the former is > acceptable for the moment. Maybe upstream folks can help you.
Based on some additional experimental evidence, it seems the tests assume that /dev is mounted. I'll work with upstream on getting them to fail gracefully rather than outright segfault if there is no /dev partition.
That wasn't quite right-- the tests were failing because the code did not wrap libusb_init around any kind of success check, so when /dev was not mounted or when the minimal /dev that mock mounts was mounted, libusb_init would fail. I looked at the libusbx test code for libusb_init and wrote a patch that fixes this. The patch will get sent upstream; the SPEC, SRPM, and patch are here: Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables2.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables2-1.3.4-3.fc21.src.rpm and patch: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables-libusb_check.patch
Package approved. 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 %doc. Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1186501-libticables2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev, /usr/share/doc/libticables2, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d [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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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. ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libticables2-doc [ ]: 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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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: libticables2-1.3.4-3.fc23.x86_64.rpm libticables2-devel-1.3.4-3.fc23.x86_64.rpm libticables2-doc-1.3.4-3.fc23.noarch.rpm libticables2-1.3.4-3.fc23.src.rpm libticables2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ticables -> ti cables, ti-cables, timetables libticables2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US handhelds -> handholds, handhold libticables2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libticables -> impracticable libticables2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libticables2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libticables2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ticables -> ti cables, ti-cables, timetables libticables2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US handhelds -> handholds, handhold libticables2.src: W: invalid-url Patch0: http://tc01.fedoraproject.org/tilp2/libticables-libusb_check.patch <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- libticables2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libticables2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libticables2(x86-64) pkgconfig(glib-2.0) libticables2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libticables2: libticables2 libticables2(x86-64) libticables2.so.6()(64bit) libticables2-devel: libticables2-devel libticables2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(ticables2) libticables2-doc: libticables2-doc Source checksums ---------------- http://sourceforge.net/projects/tilp/files/tilp2-linux/tilp2-1.17/libticables2-1.3.4.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 45cae91ad9ee1cc2ebc0f5865923ff77f1e0adf0793d3010eeb802efc140e5b0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 45cae91ad9ee1cc2ebc0f5865923ff77f1e0adf0793d3010eeb802efc140e5b0 http://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/69-libticables.rules : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e14a08b6a0c03f55c0f44de79de8896f0be5e8f7ccd5dd94f800c798f4fe79f8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e14a08b6a0c03f55c0f44de79de8896f0be5e8f7ccd5dd94f800c798f4fe79f8 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1186501 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libticables2 Short Description: Texas Instruments link cables library Upstream URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables2.spec Owners: tc01 Branches: f20 f21 f22 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
libticables2-1.3.4-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libticables2-1.3.4-3.fc21
libticables2-1.3.4-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libticables2-1.3.4-3.fc20
libticables2-1.3.4-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libticables2-1.3.4-3.fc22
libticables2-1.3.4-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
libticables2-1.3.4-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
libticables2-1.3.4-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
libticables2-1.3.4-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.