Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01718717-wlsunset/wlsunset.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01718717-wlsunset/wlsunset-0.1.0-0.1.fc34.src.rpm Copr URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/alebastr/sway-extras/ Description: Day/night gamma adjustments for Sway and other Wayland compositors supporting wlr-gamma-control-unstable-v1. Minimalistic alternative to redshift-wlr/gammastep that works with sway, wayfire and other wlroots-based compositors. Fedora Account System Username: alebastr
- ACCEPT Looks goot to me! 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", "Expat License", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/home/returntrip/devel/packaging/reviews/1891163-wlsunset/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Package does not generate any conflict. [-]: 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 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 ===== 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). [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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: wlsunset-0.1.0-0.1.fc34.x86_64.rpm wlsunset-debuginfo-0.1.0-0.1.fc34.x86_64.rpm wlsunset-debugsource-0.1.0-0.1.fc34.x86_64.rpm wlsunset-0.1.0-0.1.fc34.src.rpm wlsunset.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wlr -> war, SLR wlsunset.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wlsunset wlsunset.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wlr -> war, SLR 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: wlsunset-debuginfo-0.1.0-0.1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- wlsunset-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://git.sr.ht/~kennylevinsen/wlsunset <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> wlsunset-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://git.sr.ht/~kennylevinsen/wlsunset <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> wlsunset.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wlr -> war, SLR wlsunset.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://git.sr.ht/~kennylevinsen/wlsunset <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> wlsunset.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wlsunset 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://git.sr.ht/~kennylevinsen/wlsunset/archive/0.1.0.tar.gz#/wlsunset-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 78ec889f74505aa2f9060eebdee05092bda5452104656c0d868b2f0a4998f53c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 78ec889f74505aa2f9060eebdee05092bda5452104656c0d868b2f0a4998f53c Requires -------- wlsunset (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wlsunset-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wlsunset-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- wlsunset: wlsunset wlsunset(x86-64) wlsunset-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) wlsunset-debuginfo wlsunset-debuginfo(x86-64) wlsunset-debugsource: wlsunset-debugsource wlsunset-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -o --enablerepo local -b 1891163 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, R, fonts, Haskell, Python, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wlsunset
FEDORA-2020-1e95155fcb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1e95155fcb
FEDORA-2020-f06c053ac7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f06c053ac7
FEDORA-2020-1e95155fcb 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-2020-1e95155fcb \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1e95155fcb See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-f06c053ac7 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-f06c053ac7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f06c053ac7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-f06c053ac7 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-1e95155fcb has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.