Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/kirc/kirc.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/kirc/kirc-0.2.3-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: kirc ("KISS for IRC") is a tiny open-source Internet Relay Chat (IRC) client designed with usability and cross-platform compatibility in mind. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60392440
>URL: https://github.com/mcpcpc/kirc >Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz With GitHub, you can use "%{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz" as the Source. >%make_build \ > CFLAGS="%{optflags}" \ > LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}" Calling "%set_build_flags" before "%make_build" should handle CFLAGS and LDFLAGS for you. >%{_mandir}/man1/kirc.1.gz Do not assume man pages will be gzipped. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/kirc/kirc.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/kirc/kirc-0.2.3-2.fc34.src.rpm Changelog: - Update tarball URL - Use set_build_flags macro - Do not assume man pages will be gzipped
The SRPM link gives me a 404.
Ah sorry, I'd uploaded the wrong thing. Please try again, it should be good now.
Package approved. Sorry for taking so long. 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. [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 [-]: 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. [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 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: 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 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. Note: link to scratch build in koji follows. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62674296 [-]: %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: kirc-0.2.3-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm kirc-debuginfo-0.2.3-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm kirc-debugsource-0.2.3-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm kirc-0.2.3-2.fc35.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: kirc-debuginfo-0.2.3-2.fc35.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/mcpcpc/kirc/archive/0.2.3/kirc-0.2.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0eb227551e40afee50af3dddf129245d9ed6648db2a722a72d2fee0b46484876 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0eb227551e40afee50af3dddf129245d9ed6648db2a722a72d2fee0b46484876 Requires -------- kirc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) kirc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): kirc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- kirc: kirc kirc(x86-64) kirc-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) kirc-debuginfo kirc-debuginfo(x86-64) kirc-debugsource: kirc-debugsource kirc-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1919704 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, R, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo kirc 1919704 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32358
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kirc
FEDORA-2021-cbf2a5aace has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-cbf2a5aace
FEDORA-2021-38258ea463 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-38258ea463
FEDORA-2021-54e00bc778 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-54e00bc778
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-a9b6ad3bb6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-a9b6ad3bb6
FEDORA-2021-54e00bc778 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-54e00bc778 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-54e00bc778 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-a9b6ad3bb6 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-2021-a9b6ad3bb6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-38258ea463 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-38258ea463 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-38258ea463 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-cbf2a5aace has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-cbf2a5aace \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-cbf2a5aace See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-06b8b3d64b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-06b8b3d64b` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-06b8b3d64b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-60f48e843f 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-2021-60f48e843f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-4368d76ba1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-4368d76ba1` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4368d76ba1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-855cb3af6b has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-855cb3af6b` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-855cb3af6b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-06b8b3d64b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-4368d76ba1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-855cb3af6b has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-60f48e843f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.