Spec URL: https://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/emacs-logstash-conf/emacs-logstash-conf.spec SRPM URL: https://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/emacs-logstash-conf/emacs-logstash-conf-0.4-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: A basic Emacs mode for editing Logstash configuration files. Features: * Syntax highlighting * Indentation Fedora Account System Username: melmorabity
Here is a successful koji scratch build. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73489506
Hello Mohamed, Could you add a license text to logstash-conf-init.el like logstash-conf.el or ask the upstream to add a license file? This package doesn't have %license and the license of Source1 code is unknown. The upstream doesn't have a license file but it is reasonable for me because the upstream provides only one source code(logstash-conf.el) that includes the license text in its own file. Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi 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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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 ------- $ rpmlint ./results/emacs-logstash-conf-0.4-1.fc35.noarch.rpm (none): W: unable to init enchant, spellchecking disabled. (none): W: unable to init enchant, spellchecking disabled. ========================================================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================================================== rpmlint: 2.0.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 ========================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s ========================================= $ rpmlint ./results/emacs-logstash-conf-0.4-1.fc35.src.rpm (none): W: unable to init enchant, spellchecking disabled. (none): W: unable to init enchant, spellchecking disabled. ========================================================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================================================== rpmlint: 2.0.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 ========================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ========================================= Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Wilfred/logstash-conf.el//archive/0.4/emacs-logstash-conf-0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ac2c803a0fc6b2ac526a98f19b62b9c31073acb89ef68ed97e6e07d1dc2ce34f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ac2c803a0fc6b2ac526a98f19b62b9c31073acb89ef68ed97e6e07d1dc2ce34f Requires -------- emacs-logstash-conf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): emacs(bin) Provides -------- emacs-logstash-conf: emacs-logstash-conf Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1979736 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, R, Java, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Hello Hirotaka, thanks for the review. (In reply to Hirotaka Wakabayashi from comment #2) > Could you add a license text to logstash-conf-init.el like logstash-conf.el > or > ask the upstream to add a license file? logstash-conf-init.el is not part of the original source code. It was written by me. It allows all the macros/modes provided by the package to be conveniently loaded and available when starting Emacs. Without any explicit license, such a file is licensed, as for SPEC files, under the MIT license according to the FPCA (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement).
Hello Mohamed, Package approved. I learned about FPCA.:)
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/emacs-logstash-conf
FEDORA-2021-c69379ce90 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c69379ce90
FEDORA-2021-c69379ce90 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-c69379ce90 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c69379ce90 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-ba3acd4273 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-ba3acd4273 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ba3acd4273 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-ba3acd4273 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-c69379ce90 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.