Spec URL: https://github.com/xvitaly/zswap-cli/raw/master/packaging/fedora/zswap-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/xvitaly/ecrepo/fedora-32-x86_64/01344839-zswap-cli/zswap-cli-0.3.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Command-line tool to control zswap options Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly
%{?systemd_requires} is not necessary anymore, see this for example https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807753#c14 As for 'No known owner of /etc/default' there is already upstream issue: https://github.com/xvitaly/zswap-cli/issues/28 Please, use full link without macroses in URL: https://github.com/xvitaly/zswap-cli It's much easier to click on link in your code editor. All this minor issues could be fixed during import and next version. Tested for few days this package and all fine. Package approved. --- 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]: 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", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/data-linux/tmp/review/1827901-zswap- cli/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/default [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/default [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. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: 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 zswap-cli [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: zswap-cli-0.3.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm zswap-cli-debuginfo-0.3.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm zswap-cli-debugsource-0.3.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm zswap-cli-0.3.0-1.fc33.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: zswap-cli-debuginfo-0.3.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/xvitaly/zswap-cli/archive/v0.3.0/zswap-cli-0.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 590d0a9314722bd6e213d56e7ca59ce9cd0e88d3ccb006739f76e19d8ba74c4c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 590d0a9314722bd6e213d56e7ca59ce9cd0e88d3ccb006739f76e19d8ba74c4c Requires -------- zswap-cli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(zswap-cli) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfmt.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd zswap-cli-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): zswap-cli-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- zswap-cli: config(zswap-cli) zswap-cli zswap-cli(x86-64) zswap-cli-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) zswap-cli-debuginfo zswap-cli-debuginfo(x86-64) zswap-cli-debugsource: zswap-cli-debugsource zswap-cli-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1827901 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, PHP, Perl, Java, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zswap-cli
FEDORA-2020-5e3032c74d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5e3032c74d
FEDORA-2020-75d218e536 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-75d218e536
FEDORA-2020-5e3032c74d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-75d218e536 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-2020-75d218e536 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-75d218e536 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-75d218e536 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.