Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/toga2/toga2.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/toga2/toga2-4.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Toga II is a UCI chess engine based on Fruit. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66618129
- Use https if possivle: URL: http://www.talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=66174 Source0: http://www.mediafire.com/file/4c8m5lejoo7fi3d/TogaII40.zip - Ask upstream to fix their obsolete FSF address: toga2.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/toga2/copying.txt Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/bob/packaging/review/toga2/review- toga2/srpm-unpacked/toga2.spec See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: toga2-4.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm toga2-debuginfo-4.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm toga2-debugsource-4.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm toga2-4.0-1.fc35.src.rpm toga2.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/toga2/copying.txt toga2.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://www.talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=66174 <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed: EE certificate key too weak (_ssl.c:1129)> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo toga2 1953231 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33824
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/toga2
FEDORA-2021-73f1b1d8a4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-73f1b1d8a4
FEDORA-2021-e920bee2f6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e920bee2f6
FEDORA-2021-e920bee2f6 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-e920bee2f6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e920bee2f6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-73f1b1d8a4 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-2021-73f1b1d8a4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-73f1b1d8a4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-e920bee2f6 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-73f1b1d8a4 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.