Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/multimarkdown/multimarkdown.spec SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/multimarkdown/multimarkdown-6.5.1-3.fc31.src.rpm Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lyessaadi/multimarkdown/build/1235140/ Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41452627 Description: MultiMarkdown is a superset of the Markdown lightweight markup syntax with support for additional output formats and features. Writing with MultiMarkdown allows you to separate the content and structure of your document from the formatting. You focus on the actual writing, without having to worry about making the styles of your chapter headers match, or ensuring the proper spacing between paragraphs. And with a little forethought, a single plain text document can easily be converted into multiple output formats without having to rewrite the entire thing or format it by hand. Even better, you don’t have to write in “computer-ese” to create well formatted HTML or LaTeX commands. You just write, MultiMarkdown takes care of the rest. Fedora Account System Username: lyessaadi
- Fix the obsolete FSF address and send the patch upstream: multimarkdown.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/mmd6/mmd-envelope.sty multimarkdown.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/mmd6/mmd-letterhead.sty - Please add a comment explaining the license breakdown 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. [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]: 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. [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", "zlib/libpng license Expat License", "zlib/libpng license", "Expat License", "BSD (unspecified)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 551 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/multimarkdown/review- multimarkdown/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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 624640 bytes in 10 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2027520 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: multimarkdown-6.5.1-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm multimarkdown-debuginfo-6.5.1-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm multimarkdown-debugsource-6.5.1-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm multimarkdown-6.5.1-3.fc33.src.rpm multimarkdown.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede multimarkdown.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ese -> ESE, see, es multimarkdown.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/mmd6/mmd-envelope.sty multimarkdown.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/mmd6/mmd-letterhead.sty multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmd2all multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmd2epub multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmd2fodt multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmd2odt multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmd2opml multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmd2pdf multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmd2tex multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary multimarkdown multimarkdown.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede multimarkdown.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ese -> ESE, see, es multimarkdown.src:19: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(CuTest) multimarkdown.src:20: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(argtable3) multimarkdown.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(miniz) multimarkdown.src:22: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(uthash) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 16 warnings.
Hello ! Thank you for taking my review request, and sorry for the late answer (was pretty overwhelmed yesterday). Also, I was about to do ask for a review swap for this package with other maintainers, so if you have some packages I can review, don't hesitate (especially since you also sponsored me few months ago). So, I've updated the spec file (https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/multimarkdown/multimarkdown.spec), and added a patch as you requested (https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/multimarkdown/fsf-address.patch) ! Here's the new SRPM : https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/multimarkdown/multimarkdown-6.5.1-4.fc31.src.rpm ! And I've submitted a koji scratch build, but koji seems to have crashed (?), but normally since I was interrupted at a safe moment it should be fine (?). Here's the link : https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42386998 .
Soo... I forgot to add git to the build requirements, updated everything, it is fine now. That shows that even with a seemingly harmless changes, a koji build is always a good idea :D ! Here's the new koji build : https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42388021 !
- Prefer git-core instead of the full git Package approved.
> - Prefer git-core instead of the full git Thank you :) ! I'll make sure to change that before submitting it.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/multimarkdown
FEDORA-2020-b7439ebdbc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b7439ebdbc
FEDORA-2020-bf81f16134 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bf81f16134
FEDORA-2020-b6d95d0287 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b6d95d0287
multimarkdown-6.5.1-4.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2020-b6d95d0287
multimarkdown-6.5.1-4.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-bf81f16134
multimarkdown-6.5.1-4.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 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-2020-b7439ebdbc
FEDORA-2020-b7439ebdbc has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-bf81f16134 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-b6d95d0287 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.