Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/LaTeXML.spec SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/LaTeXML-0.8.2-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: LaTeXML is a converter that transforms TeX and LaTeX into XML/HTML/ePub/MathML and other formats. Fedora Account System Username: mikep
- Not needed: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - If I'm not mistaken, it seems you're missing some Requires:/BR used in lib/ and bin/ : base Carp charnames Cwd Data::Dumper DB_File Encode File::Copy File::Path File::Spec File::Temp FindBin HTTP::Response HTTP::Request IO::Socket List::Util Math::Trig Pod::Find POSIX strict Term::ANSIColor Text::Balanced Text::Wrap Unicode::Normalize warnings - Run the tests: %check make test - The LICENSE file should be installed with %license, not doc: %license LICENSE - Perms for binaries should be 755: LaTeXML.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/latexml 555 LaTeXML.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/latexmlc 555 LaTeXML.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/latexmlfind 555 LaTeXML.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/latexmlmath 555 LaTeXML.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/latexmlpost 555 Run: %{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/* after make pure_install - Add the Release-Version info in your %changelog entry
Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/LaTeXML.spec SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/LaTeXML-0.8.2-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: LaTeXML is a converter that transforms TeX and LaTeX into XML/HTML/ePub/MathML and other formats. Fedora Account System Username: mikep Changes made for comment #1.
Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1054720 bytes in 4 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ===== 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: "Public domain CC0", "Unknown or generated". 1171 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/LaTeXML/review-LaTeXML/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/texlive/texmf- dist/tex/latex/latexml [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/texlive/texmf- dist/tex/latex/latexml [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]: 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]: 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 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 Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. ===== 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). [?]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: LaTeXML-0.8.2-1.fc29.noarch.rpm LaTeXML-0.8.2-1.fc29.src.rpm LaTeXML.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ePub -> e Pub, pub LaTeXML.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ePub -> e Pub, pub LaTeXML.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/LaTeXML/resources/DTD/LaTeXML.dtd LaTeXML.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ePub -> e Pub, pub LaTeXML.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ePub -> e Pub, pub 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/LaTeXML
LaTeXML-0.8.2-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-969b3cd650
LaTeXML-0.8.2-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-969b3cd650
LaTeXML-0.8.2-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.