Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libstrophe.spec SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libstrophe-0.10.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: libstrophe is a minimal XMPP library written in C. It has almost no external dependencies, only an XML parsing library (expat or libxml are both supported). It is designed for both POSIX and Windows systems. Fedora Account System Username: fantom Scratch build: rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74005273 f35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74005277 f34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74005281
I fixed the Requires tag in the doc subpackage, and I made new release. Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libstrophe.spec SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libstrophe-0.10.1-2.fc33.src.rpm Scratch build: rawhide (future f36): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74007169 f34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74007178
I replaced full file names by %%{name} macro in %%files section. Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libstrophe.spec SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libstrophe-0.10.1-3.fc33.src.rpm Scratch build: rawhide (future f36): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74124127 f34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74124129
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in libstrophe See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets Replace with %{?ldconfig_scriptlets}, which would expand to nothing for recent releases. - doc package should ensure proper version of library is installed. Required for license file. Requires: %{name} >= %{version}-%{release} might be used, but equal would be the best. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "MIT License", "[generated file]", "*No copyright* MIT License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "MIT License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "*No copyright* Public domain". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/1994501-libstrophe/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. %{?ldconfig} should be used instead of %post -p /sbin/ldconfig [-]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libstrophe-0.10.1-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm libstrophe-devel-0.10.1-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm libstrophe-doc-0.10.1-3.fc36.noarch.rpm libstrophe-debuginfo-0.10.1-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm libstrophe-debugsource-0.10.1-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm libstrophe-0.10.1-3.fc36.src.rpm libstrophe.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libxml -> libel libstrophe-doc.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libstrophe libstrophe.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libxml -> libel 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libstrophe-debuginfo-0.10.1-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm libstrophe-devel-debuginfo-0.10.1-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/strophe/libstrophe/releases/download/0.10.1/libstrophe-0.10.1.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cf1a363ae6df88ccd97292d4e859b7680d8bac79347b53a9dc8f095456b7a02d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cf1a363ae6df88ccd97292d4e859b7680d8bac79347b53a9dc8f095456b7a02d Requires -------- libstrophe (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libstrophe-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libstrophe(x86-64) libstrophe.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(expat) pkgconfig(openssl) rtld(GNU_HASH) libstrophe-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libstrophe libstrophe-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libstrophe-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libstrophe: libstrophe libstrophe(x86-64) libstrophe.so.0()(64bit) libstrophe-devel: libstrophe-devel libstrophe-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libstrophe) libstrophe-doc: libstrophe-doc libstrophe-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libstrophe-debuginfo libstrophe-debuginfo(x86-64) libstrophe.so.0.0.0-0.10.1-3.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libstrophe-debugsource: libstrophe-debugsource libstrophe-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1994501 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, fonts, R, PHP, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Because all MUST items are fine, granting review+. I would like issues with ldconfig and doc versioning fixed, but I dont think it blocks review. Thank you for the package, use "fedpkg request-repo libstrophe 1994501" command to continue.
Thanks! I made release with your remarks. Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libstrophe.spec SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libstrophe-0.10.1-4.fc33.src.rpm copr build: rawhide/f34/f33: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fantom/profanity/build/2661726/
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libstrophe
FEDORA-2021-8bf61f81bb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8bf61f81bb
FEDORA-2021-8bf61f81bb has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-8bf61f81bb \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8bf61f81bb See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-8bf61f81bb has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.