Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/didiksupriadi41/picocli/fedora-34-x86_64/02316360-picocli/picocli.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/didiksupriadi41/picocli/fedora-34-x86_64/02316360-picocli/picocli-4.6.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Picocli is a modern library and framework, written in Java, that contains both an annotations API and a programmatic API. It features usage help with ANSI colors and styles, TAB autocompletion and nested subcommands. In a single file, so you can include it in source form. This lets users run picocli-based applications without requiring picocli as an external dependency. Fedora Account System Username: didiksupriadi41
== Rawhide Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/didiksupriadi41/picocli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02316360-picocli/picocli.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/didiksupriadi41/picocli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02316360-picocli/picocli-4.6.1-1.fc35.src.rpm
Hi Didik. I'm not a packager yet, but I have one thing to point out: * Use a more descriptive name for your archive (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Tags) Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz By using the Source0 above, you will be able to use the %autosetup macro: %prep %autosetup
Thank you for your feedback. I've fixed it and put a new SPEC & SRPM file at copr. Here's the links: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/didiksupriadi41/picocli/fedora-34-x86_64/02316600-picocli/picocli.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/didiksupriadi41/picocli/fedora-34-x86_64/02316600-picocli/picocli-4.6.1-1.fc34.src.rpm
This is my first package and I'm seeking for a sponsor. ^^ here's my koji build for both fedora 34 and fedora rawhide. Koji f34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=71477977 Koji f35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=71471495
I have no involvement with the upstream development currently. I'm just being active in the community surrounds it. And for now, I didn't find any Fedora contributors that are willing to maintain this package with me.
My package review is only one so far, see bug 1980142 comment 2
also, see bug 1977987 comment 3
LGTM, pqckage approved. You still need to find a sponsor, 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "Expat License". 982 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/picocli/review- picocli/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build ===== 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: picocli-4.6.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm picocli-javadoc-4.6.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm picocli-4.6.1-1.fc35.src.rpm picocli.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Thanks for the quick review Robert-Andre. Didik, this package and the two reviews show that you've sufficient understanding of the packager guidelines. I've sponsored you to the packager group now :) Please log out and back in to src.fedoraproject.org. It will sync with the Fedora accounts system when you do. Please continue from here, and please do continue to familiarise yourself with the guidelines and other tools and responsibilities of us package maintainers---such as helping our colleagues with their reviews. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner Cheers, Ankur
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/picocli
FEDORA-2021-80709d684d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-80709d684d
FEDORA-2021-9cbdf12569 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9cbdf12569
FEDORA-2021-9cbdf12569 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-2021-9cbdf12569 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9cbdf12569 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-80709d684d 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-2021-80709d684d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-80709d684d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-14e23b9f24 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-14e23b9f24` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-14e23b9f24 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-80e6085725 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-2021-80e6085725` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-80e6085725 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-95039c8299 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-95039c8299` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-95039c8299 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-3d367fb192 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-2021-3d367fb192` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3d367fb192 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-95039c8299 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-3d367fb192 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.