Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/msuchy/package-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01342058-create-fake-rpm/create-fake-rpm.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/msuchy/package-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01342058-create-fake-rpm/create-fake-rpm-1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: A tool to generate an (s)rpm with faked provides. Fedora Account System Username: msuchy Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/msuchy/package-review/build/1342058/
># Sources can be obtained by ># git clone git://github.com/xsuchy/create-fake-rpm.git ># cd create-fake-rpm ># tito build --tgz >Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz This command will always package the latest master; the instructions should say how to retrieve the exact same source as was used to build the package. That said, the project is hosted on GitHub, which allows you to get a .tar.gz of any chosen tag using a URL like this: https://github.com/%{repo_owner}/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz or, if you're using an untagged commit: https://github.com/%{repo_owner}/%{name}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz
> This command will always package the latest master Nope. The command `tito build --tgz --test` will package the latest master. Without the `--test` tito will package the latest tagged version. > ... GitHub, which allows you to get a .tar.gz Sure. GitHub allows me to do that. The problem is that I (as upstream and rpm package maintainer) am NOT using this tarball for creating src.rpm. And if you compare the output of: * https://github.com/xsuchy/create-fake-rpm/archive/create-fake-rpm-1-1.tar.gz * tito build --tgz They are binary different - albeit the content is the same. This cause problem for tools like rpminspect.
taking
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Please use install -p. The description is too short IMO. There is some good text on the homepage which could be C&Ped.
Updated. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/msuchy/package-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01342058-create-fake-rpm/create-fake-rpm.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/msuchy/package-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01342058-create-fake-rpm/create-fake-rpm-1-1.fc33.src.rpm
The links to Spec/SRPM are the same as before. Please update.
Mea culpa. Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/msuchy/package-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01346784-create-fake-rpm/create-fake-rpm.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/msuchy/package-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01346784-create-fake-rpm/create-fake-rpm-2-1.fc33.src.rpm
Approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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. [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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: 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]: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: create-fake-rpm-2-1.fc33.noarch.rpm create-fake-rpm-2-1.fc33.src.rpm create-fake-rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US somepackage -> some package, some-package, prepackage create-fake-rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US noarch -> no arch, no-arch, monarch create-fake-rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA create-fake-rpm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US somepackage -> some package, some-package, prepackage create-fake-rpm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usr -> use, us, user create-fake-rpm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US noarch -> no arch, no-arch, monarch create-fake-rpm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA create-fake-rpm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: create-fake-rpm-2.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- create-fake-rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US somepackage -> some package, some-package, prepackage create-fake-rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US noarch -> no arch, no-arch, monarch create-fake-rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA create-fake-rpm.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/xsuchy/create-fake-rpm <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- create-fake-rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash rpm-build Provides -------- create-fake-rpm: create-fake-rpm Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1825681 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, Java, fonts, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/create-fake-rpm
FEDORA-2020-9d5dfb64d6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9d5dfb64d6
FEDORA-2020-d8c9d1d028 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d8c9d1d028
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-93ec113f68 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-93ec113f68
FEDORA-2020-94b86b8f5b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-94b86b8f5b
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ef8ddb60a9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ef8ddb60a9
FEDORA-2020-9d5dfb64d6 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-9d5dfb64d6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9d5dfb64d6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-94b86b8f5b has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-94b86b8f5b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-94b86b8f5b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-d8c9d1d028 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d8c9d1d028 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d8c9d1d028 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ef8ddb60a9 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ef8ddb60a9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-93ec113f68 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-93ec113f68 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-d8c9d1d028 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-9d5dfb64d6 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-94b86b8f5b has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-93ec113f68 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ef8ddb60a9 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.