Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270-5.3-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: lib3270 is a TN3270 protocol library, originally designed as part of the pw3270 application. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63303476
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed - Compiler flags are not used - 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' is not needed - Try to get Make output more verbose; if you can't try with %make_build SHELL='sh -x' - 'doxygen' directory contains Doxygen's script files to compile manpages and HTML documentation ===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 199 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1936262-lib3270/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [?]: 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 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]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: lib3270-5.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm lib3270-devel-5.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm lib3270-debuginfo-5.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm lib3270-debugsource-5.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm lib3270-5.3-1.fc35.src.rpm lib3270-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: lib3270-debuginfo-5.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- lib3270-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/PerryWerneck/lib3270/archive/5.3.tar.gz#/lib3270-5.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a1a97e6358a9877892370852bda4b63a4fde34d34031e9d0b1dd819738f6c939 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a1a97e6358a9877892370852bda4b63a4fde34d34031e9d0b1dd819738f6c939 Requires -------- lib3270 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) lib3270-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config lib3270(x86-64) lib3270.so.5.3()(64bit) lib3270-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lib3270-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- lib3270: lib3270 lib3270(x86-64) lib3270.so.5.3()(64bit) lib3270-devel: lib3270-devel lib3270-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(lib3270) lib3270-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) lib3270-debuginfo lib3270-debuginfo(x86-64) lib3270-debugsource: lib3270-debugsource lib3270-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1936262 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, Perl, Python, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
I'm correcting myself... - Try to get Make output more verbose; if you can't, try with %make_build SHELL='sh -x'
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270-5.3-2.fc33.src.rpm Changelog: - Do not remove buildroot on install - Make build output more verbose - Ensure build flags are applied - Build docs
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #4) > SRPM URL: > https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270-5.3-2.fc33.src.rpm URL broken
Sorry, copypaste mistake. Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270-5.3-2.fc35.src.rpm
Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Just a workaround for URL: %{url}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz can be written %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz ===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 199 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1936262-lib3270/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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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 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 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: lib3270-5.3-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm lib3270-devel-5.3-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm lib3270-doc-5.3-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm lib3270-debuginfo-5.3-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm lib3270-debugsource-5.3-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm lib3270-5.3-2.fc35.src.rpm lib3270-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: lib3270-debuginfo-5.3-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- lib3270-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/PerryWerneck/lib3270/archive/5.3.tar.gz#/lib3270-5.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a1a97e6358a9877892370852bda4b63a4fde34d34031e9d0b1dd819738f6c939 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a1a97e6358a9877892370852bda4b63a4fde34d34031e9d0b1dd819738f6c939 Requires -------- lib3270 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) lib3270-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config lib3270(x86-64) lib3270.so.5.3()(64bit) lib3270-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lib3270-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lib3270-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- lib3270: lib3270 lib3270(x86-64) lib3270.so.5.3()(64bit) lib3270-devel: lib3270-devel lib3270-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(lib3270) lib3270-doc: lib3270-doc lib3270-doc(x86-64) lib3270-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) lib3270-debuginfo lib3270-debuginfo(x86-64) lib3270-debugsource: lib3270-debugsource lib3270-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1936262 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo lib3270 1936262 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32787
doc sub-package must be noarch and must provide an its own license file.
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270-5.3-3.fc35.src.rpm Changelog: - Add license to doc sub-package and make it noarch - Update URLs
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lib3270
FEDORA-2021-c8054062b9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c8054062b9
FEDORA-2021-83a2696965 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-83a2696965
FEDORA-2021-da10ff316c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-da10ff316c
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5f3bfd9abf has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5f3bfd9abf
FEDORA-2021-c8054062b9 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-c8054062b9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c8054062b9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5f3bfd9abf 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-2021-5f3bfd9abf See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-83a2696965 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-2021-83a2696965 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-83a2696965 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-da10ff316c 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-da10ff316c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-da10ff316c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-c8054062b9 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-83a2696965 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-da10ff316c has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5f3bfd9abf has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.