Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@cockpit/cockpit-preview/fedora-34-x86_64/02090943-cockpit-machines/cockpit-machines.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@cockpit/cockpit-preview/fedora-34-x86_64/02090943-cockpit-machines/cockpit-machines-241-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Cockpit component for managing virtual machines. cockpit-machines is an existing package and is currently part of https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cockpit/. The source code was split into its own repository [0] and we need therefore its own rpms repository as well. [0] https://github.com/cockpit-project/cockpit-machines/ Fedora Account System Username: kkoukiou
- This should not be in Fedora %if 0%{?suse_version} This is not allowed but I understand that you're autogenerating for multiple distros at once. - Some of the code is licensed under MIT: Expat License ------------- cockpit-machines/dist/index.js.LICENSE.txt - Add dist/index.js.LICENSE.txt to the package with %license %license LICENSE dist/index.js.LICENSE.txt Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file index.js.LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== 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. [!]: 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 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "Expat License", "Expat License BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License Mozilla Public License 2.0 GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [generated file]". 122 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/cockpit- machines/review-cockpit-machines/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: cockpit-machines-241-1.fc35.noarch.rpm cockpit-machines-241-1.fc35.src.rpm cockpit-machines.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libvirt-client cockpit-machines.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libvirt-daemon-kvm cockpit-machines.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virt -> dirt, girt, vi rt cockpit-machines.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virt -> dirt, girt, vi rt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
Robert, I just created release 242 containing the requested fixes. New spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/%40cockpit/cockpit-preview/fedora-34-x86_64/02108714-cockpit-machines/cockpit-machines.spec New srpm URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/%40cockpit/cockpit-preview/fedora-34-x86_64/02108714-cockpit-machines/cockpit-machines-242-1.fc34.src.rpm My understanding is that the '%if 0%{?suse_version}' comment is not a blocking one. We indeed share this generate for other distros from a sigle template specfile.
- You need to add MIT to the list of licenses too: License: LGPLv2+ and MIT Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Thanks for your review, Robert! Katerina fixed the License: field in https://github.com/cockpit-project/cockpit-machines/commit/cc8c4afdc50f
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cockpit-machines
FEDORA-2021-f8e5a0b546 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f8e5a0b546
FEDORA-2021-f8e5a0b546 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-f8e5a0b546` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f8e5a0b546 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-f8e5a0b546 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.