Spec URL: https://github.com/xvitaly/pidgin-toobars/raw/master/pidgin-toobars.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.russianfedora.pro/kojifiles/work/tasks/708/40708/pidgin-toobars-1.14-4.fc25.src.rpm Description: Adds toolbar and status bar to Pidgin buddy list. Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly
Please change %description to not match Summary.
Issues: ======= - Please change %description to not match Summary. - Check and inform upstream about licenses: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 46 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/1436253-pidgin-toobars/licensecheck.txt pidgin-toobars-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pidgin-toobars-1.14-4.fc27.x86_64/src/toobars.c - Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/pixmaps/pidgin, /usr/share/pixmaps/pidgin/buttons, /usr/lib64/pidgin
> Please change %description to not match Summary. Done. > Package must own all directories that it creates. Done. SPEC: https://github.com/xvitaly/pidgin-toobars/raw/master/pidgin-toobars.spec SRPM: http://koji.russianfedora.pro/kojifiles/work/tasks/3000/43000/pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.fc27.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= ===== 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]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 46 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/1436253-pidgin- toobars/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 [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. [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 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]: 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]: 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. [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 pidgin- toobars-debuginfo [x]: 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]: 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: pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.fc27.x86_64.rpm pidgin-toobars-debuginfo-1.14-5.fc27.x86_64.rpm pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.fc27.src.rpm pidgin-toobars.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id pidgin-toobars.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pidgin-toobars-debuginfo-1.14-5.fc27.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 pidgin-toobars.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id pidgin-toobars.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- pidgin-toobars (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpurple.so.0()(64bit) pidgin rtld(GNU_HASH) pidgin-toobars-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pidgin-toobars: pidgin-toobars pidgin-toobars(x86-64) pidgin-toobars-debuginfo: pidgin-toobars-debuginfo pidgin-toobars-debuginfo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- pidgin-toobars: /usr/lib64/pidgin/toobars.so Source checksums ---------------- http://vayurik.ru/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/toobars/1.14/pidgin-toobars-1.14.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 01844f475786cd155dcfa6ae9864b1ac37eccdb311a4dee4e5f950fda44291d0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 01844f475786cd155dcfa6ae9864b1ac37eccdb311a4dee4e5f950fda44291d0 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1436253 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Package clean and accepted to include in Fedora repo.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/pidgin-toobars
pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-d554597d33
pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3f6c529097
pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-45f15363cb
pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2e59d1000a
pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.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-2017-45f15363cb
pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.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-2017-d554597d33
pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.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-2017-3f6c529097
pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.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-2017-2e59d1000a
pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
pidgin-toobars-1.14-5.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.