Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270-5.3-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Originally designed as part of the pw3270 application, this library provides a TN3270 virtual terminal widget for GTK+3. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270-5.3-2.fc33.src.rpm Changelog: - Do not remove buildroot on install - Make build output more verbose - Ensure build flags are applied - Build docs
Sorry, copypaste mistake. Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270-5.3-2.fc35.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270-5.3-3.fc35.src.rpm Changelog: - Add license to doc sub-package and make it noarch - Update URL
- In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we recommend not globbing the major soname version: %{_libdir}/%{name}.so.* - The code is written in C, not C++: BuildRequires: gcc - Own %{_datadir}/pw3270 %dir %{_datadir}/pw3270
- Use instead: %{_libdir}/%{name}.so.5*
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed - Please, consider the Robert-André's notes - Devel sub-package contains files which are installed inside 'glade-libs' package (/usr/share/glade); so 'glade-libs%{?_isa}' is a Requires package of libv3270-devel - These dependencies must be architecture-specific: Requires: gtk3-devel Requires: lib3270-devel ===== 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". 202 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1936263-libv3270/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor, /usr/share/glade/catalogs, /usr/share/glade/pixmaps, /usr/share/glade, /usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor/22x22/actions, /usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor/16x16/actions [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. [!]: 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 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. [!]: 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]: 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: libv3270-5.3-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm libv3270-devel-5.3-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm libv3270-doc-5.3-3.fc35.noarch.rpm libv3270-debuginfo-5.3-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm libv3270-debugsource-5.3-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm libv3270-5.3-3.fc35.src.rpm libv3270-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libv3270-debuginfo-5.3-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libv3270-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/PerryWerneck/libv3270/archive/5.3/libv3270-5.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7b3efb8ea8c61acd0f7d472293a1e71490150c0b73d8cb9ea65f3e1d70617222 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7b3efb8ea8c61acd0f7d472293a1e71490150c0b73d8cb9ea65f3e1d70617222 Requires -------- libv3270 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lib3270.so.5.3()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libv3270-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config gtk3-devel lib3270-devel libv3270(x86-64) libv3270.so.5.3()(64bit) pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0) pkgconfig(lib3270) libv3270-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libv3270-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libv3270-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libv3270: libv3270 libv3270(x86-64) libv3270.so.5.3()(64bit) libv3270-devel: libv3270-devel libv3270-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libv3270) libv3270-doc: libv3270-doc libv3270-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libv3270-debuginfo libv3270-debuginfo(x86-64) libv3270-debugsource: libv3270-debugsource libv3270-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 1936263 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, R, SugarActivity, Python, Java, fonts, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
- Own %{_datadir}/pw3270 This is already owned by the lib3270 package (which is a dependency of this one) Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270-5.3-4.fc35.src.rpm Changelog: - Update build requires - Stricter globbing for library soname
Sorry Antonio, I'd missed the comments in your last review. Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270-5.3-5.fc35.src.rpm Changelog: - Update requires for devel sub-package
Package approved.
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo libv3270 1936263 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32999
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libv3270
FEDORA-2021-62e2c218f7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-62e2c218f7
FEDORA-2021-62e2c218f7 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-2021-62e2c218f7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-62e2c218f7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-62e2c218f7 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.