Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/chafa.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/chafa-0.9.0-0.fc28.src.rpm Description: Chafa is a command-line utility that converts all kinds of images, including animated image formats like GIFs, into ANSI/Unicode character output that can be displayed in a terminal. It is highly configurable, with support for alpha transparency and multiple color modes and color spaces, combining a range of Unicode characters for optimal output. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard
- add a changelog - the way you define summary is not ok, it's always taking the previous one not the first one: chafa-devel.x86_64: E: summary-too-long C Image-to-text converter for terminal (library) (static library) (development files) chafa-doc.x86_64: E: summary-too-long C Image-to-text converter for terminal (library) (static library) (development files) (documentation) - remove the rpath chafa.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/chafa ['/usr/lib64'] - Patch the obsolete m4 macro in configure.ac: AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: chafa-0.9.0/configure.ac:36 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "GPL", "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3)". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/chafa/review-chafa/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. [x]: 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]: 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 51200 bytes in 8 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 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: chafa-static. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in chafa- lib , chafa-static , chafa-devel , chafa-doc , chafa-debuginfo , chafa-debugsource [?]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: chafa-0.9.0-0.fc29.x86_64.rpm chafa-lib-0.9.0-0.fc29.x86_64.rpm chafa-static-0.9.0-0.fc29.x86_64.rpm chafa-devel-0.9.0-0.fc29.x86_64.rpm chafa-doc-0.9.0-0.fc29.x86_64.rpm chafa-debuginfo-0.9.0-0.fc29.x86_64.rpm chafa-debugsource-0.9.0-0.fc29.x86_64.rpm chafa-0.9.0-0.fc29.src.rpm chafa.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag chafa.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/chafa ['/usr/lib64'] chafa-lib.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag chafa-static.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag chafa-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on chafa/chafa-libs/libchafa chafa-devel.x86_64: E: summary-too-long C Image-to-text converter for terminal (library) (static library) (development files) chafa-devel.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag chafa-doc.x86_64: E: summary-too-long C Image-to-text converter for terminal (library) (static library) (development files) (documentation) chafa-doc.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag chafa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag chafa-debugsource.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag chafa.src: E: no-changelogname-tag 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 1 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - add a changelog Added. > - the way you define summary is not ok, it's always taking the previous one > not the first one Good catch. Changed. > - remove the rpath Done. > - Patch the obsolete m4 macro in configure.ac: > > AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found > ------------------------------ > AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: chafa-0.9.0/configure.ac:36 Could you help? No idea what shall I do or if configure.ac is even used when configure is there. I've also renamed lib subpackage to libs to make rpmlint happy about: chafa-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on chafa/chafa-libs/libchafa Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/chafa.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/chafa-0.9.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2) > > - Patch the obsolete m4 macro in configure.ac: > > > > AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found > > ------------------------------ > > AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: chafa-0.9.0/configure.ac:36 > > Could you help? No idea what shall I do or if configure.ac is even used when > configure is there. > Sure. See https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/LT_005fINIT.html AM_PROG_LIBTOOL is obsolete, replace it with LT_INIT I sent the patch upstream: you can grab it here: Patch0: https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/hpjansson/chafa/pull/4.patch#/%{name}-%{version}-fix_obsolete_m4_macro.patch You'll need to re-run autoreconf -ivf before sed since configure.ac has changed. - Fix your Requires for the main package, you still have lib instead of libs: Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Thank you! I've applied your patch, called autoreconf, fixed Requires for the main package. Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/chafa.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/chafa-0.9.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
Looks good, package approved.
Thank You for the review and for the upstream PR.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/chafa
chafa-0.9.0-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-735c2ef695
chafa-0.9.0-1.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-2018-735c2ef695
chafa-0.9.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.