Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nudoku.spec SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nudoku-0.2.4-1.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13264233 Description: Ncurses based sudoku game Fedora Account System Username: fale
fale's scratch build of nudoku-0.2.4-1.src.rpm for f25 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13264233
Hi Fabio, Care to do a "review swap"? This looks pretty straightforward, and I have a simple one as well at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
Hi Fabio, This initial review comments based on fedora-review output of rpmlint.txt : Checking: nudoku-0.2.4-1.x86_64.rpm nudoku-debuginfo-0.2.4-1.x86_64.rpm nudoku-0.2.4-1.src.rpm nudoku.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sudoku -> Sudoku nudoku.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudoku -> Sudoku nudoku.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Amusements/Games/Board/Puzzle nudoku.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0 nudoku-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0 nudoku-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/nudoku-0.2.4/src/main.c nudoku.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sudoku -> Sudoku nudoku.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudoku -> Sudoku nudoku.src: W: non-standard-group Amusements/Games/Board/Puzzle nudoku.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. output of license checking : GPL (v3 or later) ----------------- nudoku-0.2.4/src/main.c nudoku-0.2.4/src/sudoku.c Unknown or generated -------------------- nudoku-0.2.4/src/sudoku.h (license is missing)
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - Dist tag is present. - 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: xz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [?]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jiffin/sudoko/review-nudoku/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see above comment). [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]: 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: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nudoku- debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: 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]: 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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.15 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled 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 Mock Version: 1.2.15 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.15 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/jiffin/sudoko/review-nudoku/results/nudoku-0.2.4-1.x86_64.rpm /home/jiffin/sudoko/review-nudoku/results/nudoku-debuginfo-0.2.4-1.x86_64.rpm /home/jiffin/sudoko/review-nudoku/results/nudoku-debuginfo-0.2.4-1.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/jiffin/sudoko/review-nudoku/results/nudoku-0.2.4-1.x86_64.rpm /home/jiffin/sudoko/review-nudoku/results/nudoku-debuginfo-0.2.4-1.x86_64.rpm /home/jiffin/sudoko/review-nudoku/results/nudoku-debuginfo-0.2.4-1.x86_64.rpm Requires -------- nudoku-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nudoku (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- nudoku-debuginfo: nudoku-debuginfo nudoku-debuginfo(x86-64) nudoku: nudoku nudoku(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jubalh/nudoku/archive/0.2.4.tar.gz#/nudoku-0.2.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 611feacf3122d2ec9126dcf3d71654d1381c4ba06b09cfe3eb66b70441eab7c9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 611feacf3122d2ec9126dcf3d71654d1381c4ba06b09cfe3eb66b70441eab7c9 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n nudoku 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Hi Jiffin, you may want to do the official review, then you would need to assign this bug to you and set fedora-review flag. I guess so due to your log in comment #4. It's not sufficient for the official approval to set status to assigned only.
Hi Raphael, This is not a official review. That's why I didn't assign bug to myself. I am not part of any of the packager group till now.
Hi requester, any progress with the proposed fixes below?
Hello, Sorry for the delayed answer. I've implemented the suggested fixes and here the new version: SPEC: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nudoku.spec SRPM: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nudoku-0.2.4-2.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13493911
The script in comment 4 runned flawlessly, so the package is APPROVED
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nudoku
nudoku-0.2.4-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-af70854c6a
nudoku-0.2.4-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-91d70b1a02
nudoku-0.2.4-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-8fd2586ddd
nudoku-0.2.4-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-beaf1b0a49
nudoku-0.2.4-2.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-2016-8fd2586ddd
nudoku-0.2.4-2.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-2016-91d70b1a02
nudoku-0.2.4-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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-beaf1b0a49
nudoku-0.2.4-2.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-af70854c6a
nudoku-0.2.4-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
nudoku-0.2.4-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
nudoku-0.2.4-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
nudoku-0.2.4-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.