Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/sdorfehs/sdorfehs.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/sdorfehs/sdorfehs-1.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: sdorfehs (pronounced "starfish") is a tiling window manager descended from ratpoison (which itself is modeled after GNU Screen). sdorfehs divides the screen into one or more frames, each only displaying one window at a time but can cycle through all available windows (those which are not being shown in another frame). Like Screen, sdorfehs primarily uses prefixed/modal key bindings for most actions. sdorfehs's command mode is entered with a configurable keystroke which then allows a number of bindings accessible with just a single keystroke or any other combination. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63721825
- The program is written is C not C++: BuildRequires: gcc-c++ - Use install -p to keep timestamps: sed -e 's/install -s/install/' -i Makefile - Remove trailing space here: Summary: A tiling window manager - Convert this file to UTF-8, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Convert_encoding_to_UTF-8 W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sdorfehs/AUTHORS - Please notify upstream about their use of an obsolet FSF address(do not patch it locally): sdorfehs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sdorfehs/COPYING 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]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/sdorfehs/review-sdorfehs/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. [-]: 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 20480 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. [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]: 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: 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: sdorfehs-1.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm sdorfehs-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm sdorfehs-debugsource-1.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm sdorfehs-1.1-1.fc35.src.rpm sdorfehs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ratpoison -> rat poison, rat-poison, poisoner sdorfehs.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sdorfehs/AUTHORS sdorfehs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sdorfehs/COPYING sdorfehs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ratpoison -> rat poison, rat-poison, poisoner 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Filed https://github.com/jcs/sdorfehs/issues/13 for the FSF address
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/sdorfehs/sdorfehs.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/sdorfehs/sdorfehs-1.1-2.fc35.src.rpm Changelog: - Update build requires - Preserve timestamps when installing - Convert AUTHORS to UTF-8
Package approved.
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo sdorfehs 1938500 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33000
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sdorfehs
FEDORA-2021-88686c4fb2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-88686c4fb2
FEDORA-2021-6ef6a3befd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6ef6a3befd
FEDORA-2021-1fdaf42b9c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1fdaf42b9c
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2f87aa3820 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2f87aa3820
FEDORA-2021-88686c4fb2 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-2021-88686c4fb2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-88686c4fb2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-1fdaf42b9c 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-2021-1fdaf42b9c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1fdaf42b9c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-6ef6a3befd 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-2021-6ef6a3befd \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6ef6a3befd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2f87aa3820 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-2021-2f87aa3820 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-88686c4fb2 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-6ef6a3befd has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-1fdaf42b9c has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2f87aa3820 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.