Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://odubaj.fedorapeople.org/autoconf2.69.spec SRPM URL: https://odubaj.fedorapeople.org/autoconf2.69-2.69-37.fc35.src.rpm Description: GNU's Autoconf is a tool for configuring source code and Makefiles. Using Autoconf, programmers can create portable and configurable packages, since the person building the package is allowed to specify various configuration options. You should install Autoconf2.69 if you are developing older software and would like to create shell scripts that configure your source code packages. Please note, this package is older version of official autoconf package, which was created due to compatibility reasons, as the newest version of autoconf is not ABI compatible with the older one. Fedora Account System Username: odubaj
Changes visible here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/autoconf/pull-request/9
Changes make sense to me, LGTM from my point of view. Only one note is there some discussion about parallel installation of both packages?
Sure, see change proposal about autoconf-2.71 on fedora-devel mailing list
- Please add comments documenting what these patches do: Patch1: autoconf-2.69-perl-5.22-autoscan.patch Patch2: autoconf-2.69-bash-5-LINENO.patch Patch3: autoconf-2.69-backport-runstatedir-option.patch - Remove trailing spaces here: Patch1: autoconf-2.69-perl-5.22-autoscan.patch Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issues before import. 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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Expat License [generated file]", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.3 or later", "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "[generated file]". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/autoconf2.69/review- autoconf2.69/licensecheck.txt [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/autoconf(autoconf), /usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te(autoconf), /usr/share/autoconf/autoconf(autoconf), /usr/share/autoconf/autoscan(autoconf), /usr/share/autoconf/autotest(autoconf), /usr/share/autoconf/m4sugar(autoconf), /usr/share/emacs/site- lisp/autoconf(autoconf), /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site- start.d(gforth, asymptote, emacs-filesystem, emacs-slime, emacs-irsim- mode, emacs-spice-mode, lilypond, autoconf, emacs-common) [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. [-]: 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]: 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 174080 bytes in 6 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 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: autoconf2.69-2.69-37.fc35.noarch.rpm autoconf2.69-2.69-37.fc35.src.rpm autoconf2.69.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) autoconf -> automaton autoconf2.69.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autoconf -> automaton 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Done, thanks!
OP account doesn't exist anymore.