Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/survient/wsdd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01113112-wsdd/wsdd.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/survient/wsdd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01113112-wsdd/wsdd-0.4-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: wsdd implements a Web Service Discovery host daemon. This enables (Samba) hosts, like your local NAS device, to be found by Web Service Discovery Clients like Windows. Fedora Account System Username: survient
- You need to add the SystemD scriptlets: BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros […] %post %systemd_post wsdd.service %preun %systemd_preun wsdd.service %postun %systemd_postun_with_restart wsdd.service See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in wsdd See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/wsdd/review-wsdd/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: wsdd-0.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm wsdd-0.4-1.fc32.src.rpm wsdd.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/wsdd.1.gz 89: cannot use character `*' as a starting delimiter wsdd.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/wsdd.1.gz 89: cannot use character `*' as a starting delimiter wsdd.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Thanks, I've added them here: Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/survient/wsdd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01128218-wsdd/wsdd.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/survient/wsdd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01128218-wsdd/wsdd-0.4-2.fc32.src.rpm
Package approved.
Hello, I missed the deadline for requesting a new git module and branches for this package: $ fedpkg request-repo wsdd 1780709 Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago In the time between the upstream project has released a new version which I've packaged here: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/survient/wsdd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01248579-wsdd/wsdd.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/survient/wsdd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01248579-wsdd/wsdd-0.5-2.fc33.src.rpm Am I able to get this refreshed? If any changes are needed please let me know. Thanks and apologies for the confusion.
Refreshed the flag.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wsdd
*** Bug 1805854 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Package is in repos