Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org//memavaild.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org//memavaild-0.5-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Improve responsiveness during heavy swapping: keep amount of available memory.
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51596424
- Not needed anymore %{?systemd_requires} Only system-rpm-macros is needed. See: Dependencies on the systemd package If package scriptlets call other systemd tools, for example systemd-tmpfiles, the package SHOULD declare appropriate dependencies. The %systemd_requires macro is a shortcut to require systemd for the %pre, %post, and %postun scriptlets. Note that those dependencies are not required for the %systemd_{post,preun,postun_with_restart,user_post,user_preun} macros listed above. If the package wants to use systemd tools if they are available, but does not want to declare a dependency, then the %systemd_ordering macro MAY be used as a weaker form of %systemd_requires that only declares an ordering during an RPM transaction. Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue. 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/memavaild/review-memavaild/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 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 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 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 memavaild [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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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: memavaild-0.5-1.fc34.noarch.rpm memavaild-0.5-1.fc34.src.rpm memavaild.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary memavaild memavaild.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
> If the package wants to use systemd tools if they are available, but does not want to declare a dependency, then the %systemd_ordering macro MAY be used as a weaker form of %systemd_requires that only declares an ordering during an RPM transaction. Thanks a lot for clarification and review.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/memavaild
FEDORA-2020-cd4fb54269 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cd4fb54269
FEDORA-2020-cd65ba6e04 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cd65ba6e04
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d5d8f79f44 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d5d8f79f44
FEDORA-2020-d25c72fe33 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d25c72fe33
FEDORA-2020-d25c72fe33 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-d25c72fe33 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d25c72fe33 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d5d8f79f44 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-d5d8f79f44 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-cd4fb54269 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-cd4fb54269 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cd4fb54269 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-cd65ba6e04 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-cd65ba6e04 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cd65ba6e04 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d5d8f79f44 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-cd65ba6e04 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-cd4fb54269 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-d25c72fe33 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.