Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lsfrom/lsfrom.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lsfrom/lsfrom-0.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: `lsfrom` lists all files in a directory that start with a particular sequence of characters and those after it with respect to locale collation. This can be useful for example for continuing a script on the files in a directory after a failure. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62271334
- You define that condition but never use it in %check: # needs installed lsfrom %bcond_with tests It doesn't seem there is any test run in %check. Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.NoOScv + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd lsfrom-0.1 + RPM_EC=0 ++ jobs -p + exit 0 Package approved. 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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/lsfrom/review- lsfrom/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 2 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]: 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]: 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). [?]: 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]: 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: lsfrom-0.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm lsfrom-0.1-1.fc35.src.rpm lsfrom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lsfrom 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Thank you for the review, Robert-André https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32863
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lsfrom
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #1) > - You define that condition but never use it in %check: > > # needs installed lsfrom > %bcond_with tests > > It doesn't seem there is any test run in %check. You are right: I think I will move out the %if hidden in %cabal_test (in cabal-rpm-2.0.9 and ghc-rpm-macros) to make this more explicitly transparent.
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #4) > > # needs installed lsfrom > > %bcond_with tests Also I meant to add: I have since worked out a way to use the built binary easily to run the tests with "cabal test", so hopefully in the next release they can actually be run too.
FEDORA-2021-9cc4ba4917 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9cc4ba4917
FEDORA-2021-6e10808a66 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6e10808a66
FEDORA-2021-6e10808a66 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-2021-6e10808a66 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6e10808a66 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-9cc4ba4917 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-2021-9cc4ba4917 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9cc4ba4917 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-9cc4ba4917 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-6e10808a66 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.