Spec URL: https://pagure.io/pack/blob/main/f/pack.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/pack/blob/main/f/SRPMS/pack-0.20.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: pack is a CLI implementation of the Platform Interface Specification for Cloud Native Buildpacks. Fedora Account System Username: lsm5 Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=72498332
$ fedora-review -b 1985398 INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 1985398 INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1985398 INFO: --> SRPM url: https://pagure.io/pack/blob/main/f/SRPMS/pack-0.20.0-1.fc34.src.rpm INFO: --> Spec url: https://pagure.io/pack/blob/main/f/pack.spec ERROR: 'The directory /tmp/1985398-pack is in the way, please remove' jnovy@localhost /tmp$ rm -rf /tmp/1985398-pack jnovy@localhost /tmp$ fedora-review -b 1985398 INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 1985398 INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1985398 INFO: --> SRPM url: https://pagure.io/pack/blob/main/f/SRPMS/pack-0.20.0-1.fc34.src.rpm INFO: --> Spec url: https://pagure.io/pack/blob/main/f/pack.spec INFO: Using review directory: /tmp/1985398-pack INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files ERROR: 'Error The read operation timed out downloading https://pagure.io/pack/blob/main/f/SRPMS/pack-0.20.0-1.fc34.src.rpm' (logs in /home/jnovy/.cache/fedora-review.log) ... will try again later
Hmm, I see this too, but wget-ing or curl-ing the src.rpm works just fine. Weird.
Trying a copr build ...
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lsm5/pack/build/2349351/ fedora-review --copr-build 2349351 <- should work, took really long on my machine though.
Thank Lokesh, copr worked as expected. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [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 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. It does build 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]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pack-0.20.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm pack-0.20.0-1.fc35.src.rpm pack.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C pack is a CLI implementation of the Platform Interface Specification for Cloud Native Buildpacks. pack.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.21.3-3 ['0.20.0-1.fc35', '0.20.0-1'] pack.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL https://https://github.com/buildpacks/pack pack.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/pack pack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pack pack.src: E: description-line-too-long C pack is a CLI implementation of the Platform Interface Specification for Cloud Native Buildpacks. pack.src: W: invalid-url URL https://https://github.com/buildpacks/pack pack.src: W: invalid-url Source0: v0.20.0-vendor.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings. [!] Can you please fix the above Lokesh? Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- pack (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libc.so.6()(64bit) Provides -------- pack: bundled(golang(github.com/BurntSushi/toml)) bundled(golang(github.com/Masterminds/semver)) bundled(golang(github.com/Microsoft/hcsshim)) bundled(golang(github.com/apex/log)) bundled(golang(github.com/buildpacks/lifecycle)) bundled(golang(github.com/containerd/containerd)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/go-connections)) bundled(golang(github.com/ghodss/yaml)) bundled(golang(github.com/golang/mock)) bundled(golang(github.com/google/go-cmp)) bundled(golang(github.com/google/go-containerregistry)) bundled(golang(github.com/google/go-github/v30)) bundled(golang(github.com/heroku/color)) bundled(golang(github.com/mattn/go-colorable)) bundled(golang(github.com/moby/sys/mount)) bundled(golang(github.com/onsi/gomega)) bundled(golang(github.com/opencontainers/image-spec)) bundled(golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc)) bundled(golang(github.com/opencontainers/selinux)) bundled(golang(github.com/pelletier/go-toml)) bundled(golang(github.com/pkg/errors)) bundled(golang(github.com/sclevine/spec)) bundled(golang(github.com/sergi/go-diff)) bundled(golang(github.com/sirupsen/logrus)) bundled(golang(github.com/spf13/cobra)) bundled(golang(github.com/willf/bitset)) bundled(golang(github.com/xanzy/ssh-agent)) bundled(golang(golang.org/x/mod)) bundled(golang(gopkg.in/src-d/go-git.v4)) pack pack(x86-64)
(In reply to Jindrich Novy from comment #5) Thanks Jindrich, most issues are fixed, rest justified below. PTAL. Try: fedora-review --copr-build 2349648 https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lsm5/pack/builds/ > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: pack-0.20.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm > pack-0.20.0-1.fc35.src.rpm > pack.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C pack is a CLI implementation of > the Platform Interface Specification for Cloud Native Buildpacks. Fixed > pack.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.21.3-3 ['0.20.0-1.fc35', > '0.20.0-1'] Fixed > pack.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL https://https://github.com/buildpacks/pack Fixed > pack.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/pack Fixed > pack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pack No upstream manpage, I can file a request but shouldn't be a blocker afaict. > pack.src: E: description-line-too-long C pack is a CLI implementation of the > Platform Interface Specification for Cloud Native Buildpacks. Fixed > pack.src: W: invalid-url URL https://https://github.com/buildpacks/pack Fixed > pack.src: W: invalid-url Source0: v0.20.0-vendor.tar.gz Upstream doesn't vendor deps, so I created a tarball locally with vendored deps. > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings. > > > [!] Can you please fix the above Lokesh? > Let me know ...
Looks good! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "MIT License", "Apache License 2.0", "MIT License Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "ISC License BSD (2 clause)", "MIT License BSD (3 clause)", "OpenSSL License". 2509 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/copr-build-2349648/review-pack/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 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: [!]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define gobuild(o:) GO111MODULE=off go build -buildmode pie -compiler gc -tags="rpm_crashtraceback ${BUILDTAGS:-}" -ldflags "${LDFLAGS:-} -B 0x$(head -c20 /dev/urandom|od -An -tx1|tr -d ' \\n') -extldflags '-Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld '" -a -v -x %{?**}; [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]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pack-0.20.0-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm pack-debuginfo-0.20.0-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm pack-debugsource-0.20.0-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm pack-0.20.0-2.fc35.src.rpm pack.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runnable -> burnable pack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pack pack.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runnable -> burnable pack.src: W: invalid-url Source0: v0.20.0-vendor.tar.gz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pack-debuginfo-0.20.0-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- pack (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libc.so.6()(64bit) pack-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pack-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pack: bundled(golang(github.com/BurntSushi/toml)) bundled(golang(github.com/Masterminds/semver)) bundled(golang(github.com/Microsoft/hcsshim)) bundled(golang(github.com/apex/log)) bundled(golang(github.com/buildpacks/lifecycle)) bundled(golang(github.com/containerd/containerd)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/go-connections)) bundled(golang(github.com/ghodss/yaml)) bundled(golang(github.com/golang/mock)) bundled(golang(github.com/google/go-cmp)) bundled(golang(github.com/google/go-containerregistry)) bundled(golang(github.com/google/go-github/v30)) bundled(golang(github.com/heroku/color)) bundled(golang(github.com/mattn/go-colorable)) bundled(golang(github.com/moby/sys/mount)) bundled(golang(github.com/onsi/gomega)) bundled(golang(github.com/opencontainers/image-spec)) bundled(golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc)) bundled(golang(github.com/opencontainers/selinux)) bundled(golang(github.com/pelletier/go-toml)) bundled(golang(github.com/pkg/errors)) bundled(golang(github.com/sclevine/spec)) bundled(golang(github.com/sergi/go-diff)) bundled(golang(github.com/sirupsen/logrus)) bundled(golang(github.com/spf13/cobra)) bundled(golang(github.com/willf/bitset)) bundled(golang(github.com/xanzy/ssh-agent)) bundled(golang(golang.org/x/mod)) bundled(golang(gopkg.in/src-d/go-git.v4)) pack pack(x86-64) pack-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pack-debuginfo pack-debuginfo(x86-64) pack-debugsource: pack-debugsource pack-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --copr-build 2349648 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl, Java, Ocaml, PHP, Python, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pack
FEDORA-2021-1b3a943753 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1b3a943753
FEDORA-2021-ae17f8b9e7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ae17f8b9e7
FEDORA-2021-1b3a943753 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-2021-1b3a943753 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1b3a943753 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-ae17f8b9e7 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-ae17f8b9e7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ae17f8b9e7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-1b3a943753 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-ae17f8b9e7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.