Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/bitlbee-facebook.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/bitlbee-facebook-0-0.1.20151105git.src.rpm Description: The Facebook protocol plugin for BitlBee. This plugin uses the Facebook Mobile API.
Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/bitlbee-facebook.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/bitlbee-facebook-1.0.0-1.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/bitlbee-facebook.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/bitlbee-facebook-1.1.1-1.src.rpm
Hello, - Group: is not needed in Fedora. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections - %clean and rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be included either. - BuildRoot: is not needed either - Not needed too: %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc} - make %{?_smp_mflags} ⇒ %make_build - make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install ⇒ %make_install - please only use 1 BR and R per line for clarity - you could include ChangeLog in %doc - I've got a build error: configure: error: Package requirements (json-glib-1.0 >= 0.14.0) were not met: because your BR is wrong. Fix them: BuildRequires: pkgconfig(bitlbee) >= 3.4 BuildRequires: pkgconfig(json-glib-1.0) >= 0.14.0 - Package contains obsolete m4 macros [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools Please report it upstream and patch it. See https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/LT_005fINIT.html Here's a patch for it: diff -up bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2/configure.ac.remove_obsolete_macros bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2/configure.ac --- bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2/configure.ac.remove_obsolete_macros 2017-08-31 01:22:50.000000000 +0200 +++ bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2/configure.ac 2017-10-01 19:56:13.313441648 +0200 @@ -29,8 +29,7 @@ AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([no-define]) AC_PROG_CC AM_PROG_CC_C_O -AC_DISABLE_STATIC -AC_PROG_LIBTOOL +LT_INIT([disable-static]) m4_ifdef([AM_SILENT_RULES], [AM_SILENT_RULES([yes])]) m4_ifdef([AC_PROG_CC_C99], [AC_PROG_CC_C99]) 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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/bitlbee- facebook/review-bitlbee-facebook/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/lib64/bitlbee [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: 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]: 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 10240 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in bitlbee- facebook-debuginfo , bitlbee-facebook-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm bitlbee-facebook-debuginfo-1.1.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm bitlbee-facebook-debugsource-1.1.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-1.fc28.src.rpm bitlbee-facebook-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3) > - please only use 1 BR and R per line for clarity If three comma separated strings make it less readable, I'm sorry for you. > configure: error: Package requirements (json-glib-1.0 >= 0.14.0) were not > met: > > because your BR is wrong. Fix them: > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(bitlbee) >= 3.4 > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(json-glib-1.0) >= 0.14.0 My main mistake was to use json-glib rather json-glib-devel, however the usage of pkgconfig(…) rather …-devel is IMHO not wrong per se. Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/bitlbee-facebook.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.src.rpm
The SPEC link you provided doesn't contain any change, did you forget to update it?
The SRPM is good though, package is accepted.
Sorry, forgot to copy the spec file. Thank you very much for the review!
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bitlbee-facebook
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ff632482b1
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9398680d9d
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-efd24a03d2
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-dc778209ef
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-8fc2ba4a15
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-8fc2ba4a15
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-dc778209ef
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-efd24a03d2
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9398680d9d
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ff632482b1
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
bitlbee-facebook-1.1.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.