Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-readr.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-readr-1.1.1-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: The goal of 'readr' is to provide a fast and friendly way to read rectangular data (like 'csv', 'tsv', and 'fwf'). It is designed to flexibly parse many types of data found in the wild, while still cleanly failing when data unexpectedly changes.
koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29080948
- There are two files (src/grisu3.[ch]) distributed under an Apache license. Please specify this in the SPEC. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :doc, DESCRIPTION - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. - Package requires R-core. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: 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]: 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Public domain GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 177 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/inaki/fedora- review/1616156-R-readr/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-]: %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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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 R: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires. [x]: The package has the standard %install section. ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in R-readr- debuginfo , R-readr-debugsource [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %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. R: [x]: The %check macro is present [x]: Latest version is packaged. Note: Latest upstream version is 1.1.1, packaged version is 1.1.1 ===== 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: R-readr-1.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm R-readr-debuginfo-1.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm R-readr-debugsource-1.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm R-readr-1.1.1-1.fc28.src.rpm R-readr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csv -> cs, cs v, CST R-readr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tsv -> ts, tsp, ts v R-readr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fwf -> fwd, ff, fwy R-readr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csv -> cs, cs v, CST R-readr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tsv -> ts, tsp, ts v R-readr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fwf -> fwd, ff, fwy 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: R-readr-debuginfo-1.1.1-1.fc28.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 R-readr-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/readr/index.html <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> R-readr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csv -> cs, cs v, CST R-readr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tsv -> ts, tsp, ts v R-readr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fwf -> fwd, ff, fwy R-readr.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/readr/index.html <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> R-readr-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/readr/index.html <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- R-readr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): R-readr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): R-R6 R-Rcpp R-hms R-tibble libR.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) R-readr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- R-readr-debuginfo: R-readr-debuginfo R-readr-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) R-readr: R-readr R-readr(x86-64) R-readr-debugsource: R-readr-debugsource R-readr-debugsource(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- R-readr: /usr/lib64/R/library/readr/libs/readr.so Source checksums ---------------- https://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/readr_1.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1a29b99009a06f2cee18d08bc6201fd4985b6d45c76cefca65084dcc1a2f7cb3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1a29b99009a06f2cee18d08bc6201fd4985b6d45c76cefca65084dcc1a2f7cb3 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1616156 -L /home/inaki/rpmbuild/RPMS/ Buildroot used: fedora-28-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, R, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Built with local dependencies: /home/inaki/rpmbuild/RPMS/R-tibble-1.4.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
Fixed. Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/R-readr.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/R-readr-1.1.1-2.fc28.src.rpm
Thanks, package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-readr
R-readr-1.1.1-2.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b3d0ab3b7a
R-readr-1.1.1-2.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-b3d0ab3b7a
R-readr-1.1.1-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.