Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/Disk-Utilities/Disk-Utilities.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/Disk-Utilities/Disk-Utilities-0-1.20210312git1b2ad04.fc35.src.rpm Description: Disk Utilities is a collection of utilities for ripping, dumping, analysing, and modifying disk images. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63708698
- For a prerelease, the Release field should start at 0.1: Release: 0.1%{?dist} - The code is written in C, not C++: BuildRequires: gcc - Consider lower casing the name. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_general_naming -Consider bumping to the latest GIT commit with your changes instead of a patch: %global commit 12ec77a466801b45e8a89fbed820261c0ca4cf618 […] * Sat Jan 23 2021 Davide Cavalca <dcavalca> - 0-1.20210317git12ec77a - Please install the license file the lib subpackage as it can be installed independently of the main package: %files -n libdisk %license COPYING %{_libdir}/libdisk.so.0* - The summary must be below 80 characters: Disk-Utilities.x86_64: E: summary-too-long C Collection of utilities for ripping, dumping, analysing, and modifying disk images 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. [!]: 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: [-]: 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: "the Unlicense", "Unknown or generated". 190 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/Disk-Utilities/review-Disk- Utilities/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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. [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 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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libdisk , libdisk-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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 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: Disk-Utilities-0-1.20210317git1b2ad04.fc35.x86_64.rpm libdisk-0-1.20210317git1b2ad04.fc35.x86_64.rpm libdisk-devel-0-1.20210317git1b2ad04.fc35.x86_64.rpm Disk-Utilities-debuginfo-0-1.20210317git1b2ad04.fc35.x86_64.rpm Disk-Utilities-debugsource-0-1.20210317git1b2ad04.fc35.x86_64.rpm Disk-Utilities-0-1.20210317git1b2ad04.fc35.src.rpm Disk-Utilities.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) analysing -> analyzing, analysis, signaling Disk-Utilities.x86_64: E: summary-too-long C Collection of utilities for ripping, dumping, analysing, and modifying disk images Disk-Utilities.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analysing -> analyzing, analysis, signaling Disk-Utilities.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-1.20210123git1d001b5 ['0-1.20210317git1b2ad04.fc35', '0-1.20210317git1b2ad04'] Disk-Utilities.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary adfbb Disk-Utilities.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary adfread Disk-Utilities.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary adfwrite Disk-Utilities.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary disk-analyse Disk-Utilities.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scp_dump Disk-Utilities.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scp_write libdisk.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdisk.so.0.0 exit.5 libdisk.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdisk-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation Disk-Utilities.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) analysing -> analyzing, analysis, signaling Disk-Utilities.src: E: summary-too-long C Collection of utilities for ripping, dumping, analysing, and modifying disk images Disk-Utilities.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analysing -> analyzing, analysis, signaling Disk-Utilities.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: %{url}/pull/86.patch 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 15 warnings
- This should be: [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/disk-utilities/disk-utilities.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/disk-utilities/disk-utilities-0-0.1.20210317git2ec77a4.fc35.src.rpm Changelog: - Rename to disk-utilities - Update build requires - Add COPYING to libs subpackage - Bump commit - Shorten summary
Package approved.
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo disk-utilities 1938471 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33042
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/disk-utilities
FEDORA-2021-4ee51217e2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4ee51217e2
FEDORA-2021-48e39bade3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-48e39bade3
FEDORA-2021-e03a72ed74 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e03a72ed74
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-17576d21af has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-17576d21af
FEDORA-2021-4ee51217e2 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-2021-4ee51217e2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4ee51217e2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-48e39bade3 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-2021-48e39bade3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-48e39bade3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-17576d21af 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-2021-17576d21af See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-e03a72ed74 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-e03a72ed74 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e03a72ed74 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-4ee51217e2 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-48e39bade3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-e03a72ed74 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-17576d21af has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.