Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-crayon.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-crayon-1.3.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Colored terminal output on terminals that support 'ANSI' color and highlight codes. It also works in 'Emacs' 'ESS'. 'ANSI' color support is automatically detected. Colors and highlighting can be combined and nested. New styles can also be created easily. This package was inspired by the 'chalk' 'JavaScript' project. Fedora Account System Username: spot
can you take this for me https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995433 ?
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION - 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 LICENSE 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1277966-R-crayon/licensecheck.txt Please, report to upstream and ask to add license headers in those files where is missing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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 packname crayon [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]: SourceX is a working URL. R: [x]: The %check macro is present [x]: Latest version is packaged. Note: Latest upstream version is 1.3.1, packaged version is 1.3.1 ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.13 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.13 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.13 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/gil/1277966-R-crayon/results/R-crayon-1.3.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/ --releasever 24 install /home/gil/1277966-R-crayon/results/R-crayon-1.3.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: R-crayon-1.3.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm R-crayon-1.3.1-1.fc24.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- R-crayon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): R-core R-grDevices R-memoise R-methods R-utils Provides -------- R-crayon: R-crayon Source checksums ---------------- ftp://cran.r-project.org/pub/R/contrib/main/crayon_1.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b5ba7292dee44e883ec1bc1e8e797c66c02c6a210d308a2352e2086840756834 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b5ba7292dee44e883ec1bc1e8e797c66c02c6a210d308a2352e2086840756834 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1277966 --plugins R -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, R, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
NON blocking issues: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1277966-R-crayon/licensecheck.txt Please, report to upstream and ask to add license headers in those files where is missing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define packname crayon Please, fix before import approved
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/R-crayon
R-DBI-0.3.1-1.fc23 R-testthat-0.11.0-2.fc23 R-crayon-1.3.1-2.fc23 R-memoise-0.2.1-2.fc23 R-praise-1.0.0-2.fc23 R-digest-0.6.8-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-bc7d4f9a1c
R-DBI-0.3.1-1.fc23, R-crayon-1.3.1-2.fc23, R-digest-0.6.8-2.fc23, R-memoise-0.2.1-2.fc23, R-praise-1.0.0-2.fc23, R-testthat-0.11.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update R-DBI R-testthat R-crayon R-memoise R-digest R-praise' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-bc7d4f9a1c
R-DBI-0.3.1-1.fc23, R-crayon-1.3.1-2.fc23, R-digest-0.6.8-2.fc23, R-memoise-0.2.1-2.fc23, R-praise-1.0.0-2.fc23, R-testthat-0.11.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.