Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/xvitaly/purple-libsteam/master/purple-libsteam.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/purple-libsteam/fedora-23-x86_64/00153048-purple-libsteam/purple-libsteam-1.6.1-5.20160108git8646d36.fc23.src.rpm Description: Adds support for Steam protocol to Pidgin, Finch and other libpurple based messengers. Not requires Steam client. Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly
Updated SPEC: https://github.com/xvitaly/purple-libsteam/raw/master/purple-libsteam.spec Updated SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/purple-libsteam/fedora-24-x86_64/00350808-purple-libsteam/purple-libsteam-1.6.1-10.20160416gitbf7dd28.fc24.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1297854-purple-libsteam/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1297854-purple- libsteam/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 [-]: 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 1 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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pidgin- libsteam , purple-libsteam-debuginfo [x]: 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: [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: purple-libsteam-1.6.1-10.20160416gitbf7dd28.fc23.x86_64.rpm pidgin-libsteam-1.6.1-10.20160416gitbf7dd28.fc23.noarch.rpm purple-libsteam-debuginfo-1.6.1-10.20160416gitbf7dd28.fc23.x86_64.rpm purple-libsteam-1.6.1-10.20160416gitbf7dd28.fc23.src.rpm purple-libsteam.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple purple-libsteam.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple pidgin-libsteam.noarch: W: no-documentation purple-libsteam.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple purple-libsteam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: purple-libsteam-debuginfo-1.6.1-10.20160416gitbf7dd28.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory purple-libsteam.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple purple-libsteam.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple pidgin-libsteam.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- purple-libsteam (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libnspr4.so()(64bit) libnss3.so()(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.3)(64bit) libnssutil3.so()(64bit) libplc4.so()(64bit) libplds4.so()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpurple.so.0()(64bit) libsmime3.so()(64bit) libssl3.so()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) pidgin-libsteam (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pidgin purple-libsteam purple-libsteam-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- purple-libsteam: libsteam.so()(64bit) purple-libsteam purple-libsteam(x86-64) pidgin-libsteam: pidgin-libsteam purple-libsteam-debuginfo: purple-libsteam-debuginfo purple-libsteam-debuginfo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- purple-libsteam: /usr/lib64/purple-2/libsteam.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/EionRobb/pidgin-opensteamworks/archive/bf7dd28e4247f772313d1b4005c4084eb4890301.tar.gz#/pidgin-opensteamworks-bf7dd28.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6b781a087bdc8319ceed25c39535d90cf5e4524e33ea24e0c25046ef7b60cf8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 384475f1666cbdbdcd1796646a2935b34d6bf927b04b181e8f392760eb7e5634 diff -r also reports differences
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed > output of licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1297854-purple- > libsteam/licensecheck.txt That's ok, but please ask upstream to include the appropriate headers in the files. > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pidgin- > libsteam , purple-libsteam-debuginfo Dependencies specified like this means the "pidgin-libsteam.i686" can consider its dependencies satisfied by a "purple-libsteam.x86_64" package. Will then it work? If it does, it's correct, if not then you should use this as a dependency: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} This also applies to purple-skypeweb as well, but it came to my mind now. If the i686/x86_64 package mix does not work, please update this spec file and re-build also the purple-skypeweb package with that. Apart from this, package looks good!
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #4) > > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pidgin- > > libsteam , purple-libsteam-debuginfo > > Dependencies specified like this means the "pidgin-libsteam.i686" can > consider its dependencies satisfied by a "purple-libsteam.x86_64" package. > Will then it work? If it does, it's correct, if not then you should use this > as a dependency: > > %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > > This also applies to purple-skypeweb as well, but it came to my mind now. If > the i686/x86_64 package mix does not work, please update this spec file and > re-build also the purple-skypeweb package with that. Nevermind, this is noarch, stupid me. Package approved!
> That's ok, but please ask upstream to include the appropriate headers in the files. Already done: https://github.com/EionRobb/pidgin-opensteamworks/issues/145 New SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/purple-libsteam/fedora-24-x86_64/00353957-purple-libsteam/purple-libsteam-1.6.1-11.20160618gitcd5a294.fc24.src.rpm
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/purple-libsteam
purple-libsteam-1.6.1-11.20160618gitcd5a294.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c59b04a0bb
purple-libsteam-1.6.1-11.20160618gitcd5a294.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0d535008b4
purple-libsteam-1.6.1-11.20160618gitcd5a294.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-827f3e90f5
purple-libsteam-1.6.1-11.20160618gitcd5a294.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-2016-827f3e90f5
purple-libsteam-1.6.1-11.20160618gitcd5a294.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-0d535008b4
purple-libsteam-1.6.1-11.20160618gitcd5a294.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2016-c59b04a0bb
purple-libsteam-1.6.1-11.20160618gitcd5a294.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
purple-libsteam-1.6.1-11.20160618gitcd5a294.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
purple-libsteam-1.6.1-11.20160618gitcd5a294.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.