Spec URL: https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/review/fedora-modular-repos.spec SRPM URL: https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/review/fedora-modular-repos-26-0.1.src.rpm Description: Fedora modular repository files for yum and dnf along with gpg public keys Fedora Account System Username: tdawson
The spec file was missing %{dist}. Here is the updated spec and srpm Spec URL: https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/review/fedora-modular-repos.spec SRPM URL: https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/review/fedora-modular-repos-26-0.1.fc26.src.rpm
Summary: Package is approved. The two errors reported below are shortcomings of the fedora-review tool, because it's not built to handle this exceptional case. 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 - Dist tag is present. ===== 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. [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)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /dev/shm/1458355 -fedora-modular-repos/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/pki/rpm-gpg(fedora- repos), /etc/yum.repos.d(yum, fedora-repos) [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. [-]: 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: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 ===== 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. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: 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 [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.3.4 starting (python version = 3.6.1)... 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 HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.3.4 INFO: Mock Version: 1.3.4 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /dev/shm/1458355-fedora-modular-repos/results/fedora-modular-repos-26-0.1.fc27.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 27 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /dev/shm/1458355-fedora-modular-repos/results/fedora-modular-repos-26-0.1.fc27.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: fedora-modular-repos-26-0.1.fc27.noarch.rpm fedora-modular-repos-26-0.1.fc27.src.rpm fedora-modular-repos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA fedora-modular-repos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag fedora-modular-repos.noarch: W: no-documentation fedora-modular-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-25-primary fedora-modular-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-25-secondary fedora-modular-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-26-primary fedora-modular-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-26-secondary fedora-modular-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-27-primary fedora-modular-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-modularity fedora-modular-repos.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA fedora-modular-repos.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag fedora-modular-repos.src:9: W: unversioned-explicit-provides fedora-modular-repos(%{version}) fedora-modular-repos.src: W: invalid-url Source0: fedora-modular-repos-26.tar.bz2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /dev/shm/1458355-fedora-modular-repos/srpm/fedora-modular-repos.spec 2017-06-04 13:19:31.713049907 -0400 +++ /dev/shm/1458355-fedora-modular-repos/srpm-unpacked/fedora-modular-repos.spec 2017-06-02 16:51:26.000000000 -0400 @@ -2,5 +2,5 @@ Name: fedora-modular-repos Version: 26 -Release: 0.1 +Release: 0.1%{?dist} License: MIT URL: https://pagure.io/fedora-modular-repos/ Requires -------- fedora-modular-repos (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(fedora-modular-repos) system-modular-release(26) Provides -------- fedora-modular-repos: config(fedora-modular-repos) fedora-modular-repos fedora-modular-repos(26) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1458355 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/fedora-modular-repos