Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/IPAddress/IPAddress.spec SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/IPAddress/java-11-openj9-11.0.4.11-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Library for handling IP addresses and subnets, both IPv4 and IPv6 Fedora Account System Username: jvanek This is new dependece of ITW 2.0
Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/IPAddress/IPAddress.spec SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/IPAddress/IPAddress-5.2.1-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Library for handling IP addresses and subnets, both IPv4 and IPv6 Fedora Account System Username: jvanek This is new dependece of ITW 2.0
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to get additional checks ===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [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 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. 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]: 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 Java: [X]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Can't find any BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) ===== 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. [-]: 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: IPAddress-5.2.1-1.fc31.noarch.rpm IPAddress-5.2.1-1.fc31.src.rpm IPAddress.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets IPAddress.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets IPAddress.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets IPAddress.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets IPAddress.src:19: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 19) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/seancfoley/IPAddress/archive/v5.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 161a11bddb91fa32f625175b0f4015ecf72a943f6781385c719ebe78f26e3358 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 161a11bddb91fa32f625175b0f4015ecf72a943f6781385c719ebe78f26e3358 Requires -------- IPAddress (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- IPAddress: IPAddress mvn(com.github.seancfoley:ipaddress) mvn(com.github.seancfoley:ipaddress:pom:) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1833272 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Java, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, Python, fonts, Perl, R, Ocaml, C/C++, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Optionally fix the mixed spaces and tabs, that were pointed out by rpmlint. Otherwise looks good and is good to go. Thanks!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/IPAddress
FEDORA-2020-e65f762556 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e65f762556
FEDORA-2020-e505b2c137 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-e505b2c137 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e505b2c137 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-215104fa90 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-215104fa90
FEDORA-2020-215104fa90 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-2020-215104fa90 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-215104fa90 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-215104fa90 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.