Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/regina-rexx/regina-rexx.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/regina-rexx/regina-rexx-3.9.4-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Regina is a Rexx interpreter that has been ported to most Unix platforms and operating systems. Rexx is a programming language that was designed to be easy to use for inexperienced programmers yet powerful enough for experienced users. It is also a language ideally suited as a macro language for other applications. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=78826635
This package has some known rpmlint issues: regina-rexx-libs.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 3 regina-rexx-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on regina-rexx*/regina-rexx-libs/libregina-rexx* = 3.9.4 regina-rexx-libs.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libregina.so.3.9 libregina.so.3.9 These are likely due to https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/issues/718 regina-rexx.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/regina-rexx/COPYING-LIB regina-rexx-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/regina-rexx-libs/COPYING-LIB regina-rexx-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/regina-rexx-doc/COPYING-LIB Upstream is using the old LGPLv2 (not 2.1) license text. Policy says the license text should not be patched in these cases. regina-rexx.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/rexx regina-rexx.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/rxqueue regina-rexx.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/rxstack regina-rexx-libs.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libregina.so.3.9 This is something that could technically be fixed, but given that this is an interpreter I'm wary of just naively patching it (even more so as I couldn't find a testsuite for this). I will report these issues upstream once I can get sourceforge to cooperate.
I think the rpmlint issues are fine (huh, fedora-review failed to parse them) Two issues that do need to be addressed, beyond that the package is fine: - license should be LGPLv2+ based on the actual headers - need to own %directory %_systemd_util_dir and %directory %_unitdir Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF All Permissive License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "Mozilla Public License 1.0", "BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)", "Mozilla Public License 1.0 Common Public License 1.0". 272 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2023023-regina-rexx/licensecheck.txt Per "grep -r 'version 2 of the License' *" you probably want LGPLv2+ [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. note: you can drop it from devel as devel depends on libs [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd, /usr/lib/systemd/system you probably want to either own these or pull in systemd. If the service file is optional, just own the directories using %directory %_systemd_util_dir and %directory %_unitdir [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. [x]: 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 184320 bytes in 42 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 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]: 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in regina-rexx [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in regina- rexx-devel , regina-rexx-libs [?]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- regina-rexx-libs: /usr/lib64/regina-rexx/addons/libregutil.so regina-rexx-libs: /usr/lib64/regina-rexx/addons/librxtest1.so regina-rexx-libs: /usr/lib64/regina-rexx/addons/librxtest2.so Source checksums ---------------- https://sourceforge.net/projects/regina-rexx/files/regina-rexx/3.9.4/regina-rexx-3.9.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 64f9afdf9bbf7280cffd9efc1ca25cadf6dc59467452cba467aa63cef1815fa4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 64f9afdf9bbf7280cffd9efc1ca25cadf6dc59467452cba467aa63cef1815fa4 Requires -------- regina-rexx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit) libregina.so.3()(64bit) libregina.so.3(regina_2.0)(64bit) regina-rexx-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) regina-rexx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config /usr/bin/sh libregina.so.3()(64bit) regina-rexx-libs(x86-64) regina-rexx-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libreadline.so.8()(64bit) libregina.so.3()(64bit) libregina.so.3(REXXSAA_API)(64bit) libregina.so.3(regina_2.2)(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) regina-rexx-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): regina-rexx-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): regina-rexx-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- regina-rexx: regina-rexx regina-rexx(x86-64) regina-rexx-devel: pkgconfig(libregina) regina-rexx-devel regina-rexx-devel(x86-64) regina-rexx-libs: libregina.so.3()(64bit) libregina.so.3(REXXSAA_API)(64bit) libregina.so.3(regina_2.0)(64bit) libregina.so.3(regina_2.2)(64bit) libregina.so.3(regina_3.1)(64bit) libregina.so.3(regina_3.3)(64bit) libregina.so.3(regina_3.7)(64bit) libregutil.so()(64bit) librxtest1.so()(64bit) librxtest2.so()(64bit) regina-rexx-libs regina-rexx-libs(x86-64) regina-rexx-doc: regina-rexx-doc regina-rexx-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) regina-rexx-debuginfo regina-rexx-debuginfo(x86-64) regina-rexx-debugsource: regina-rexx-debugsource regina-rexx-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2023023 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, Python, PHP, fonts, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
> - need to own %directory %_systemd_util_dir and %directory %_unitdir These are owned by the systemd package already.
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/regina-rexx/regina-rexx.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/regina-rexx/regina-rexx-3.9.4-1.fc36.src.rpm Changelog: - update license to LGPLv2+
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #4) > > - need to own %directory %_systemd_util_dir and %directory %_unitdir > > These are owned by the systemd package already. so - per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_the_directory_is_also_owned_by_a_package_implementing_required_functionality_of_your_package or https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_the_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function - if regina-rexx requires those systemd units to function, it should depend on systemd - if not, it should just own the directory - it's fine to have multiple packages owning it, e.g. ❯ rpm -qf /usr/lib/systemd/system plymouth-0.9.5-3.20210331git1ea1020.fc35.x86_64 systemd-249.7-2.fc35.x86_64 Also, typo in last line, should be %autochangelog not pautochangelog
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/regina-rexx/regina-rexx.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/regina-rexx/regina-rexx-3.9.4-1.fc36.src.rpm Changelog: - own systemd unit directories - fix autochangelog macro
- I think you can just BR on systemd-rpm-macros, no need for systemd-devel - some files are actually licensed GPLv2+, GPLv3+, BSD, and some files are MPL 1.0. need to update license field and maybe bug upstream about including the other license text - if you're updating the license field anyway, want to switch to SPDX? (optional) - not sure why the source checksum no longer matches, might want to redownload the tarball Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2023023-regina-rexx/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x] Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF All Permissive License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "Mozilla Public License 1.0", "BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)", "Mozilla Public License 1.0 Common Public License 1.0". 272 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2023023-regina-rexx/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/systemd(filesystem, oidentd, systemd), /usr/lib/systemd/system(filesystem, oidentd, plymouth, 389-ds-base, systemd, openqa-worker) [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: 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 184320 bytes in 42 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 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in regina-rexx [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in regina- rexx-devel , regina-rexx-libs [?]: 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. [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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2023023-regina-rexx/srpm- unpacked/regina-rexx.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 7 regina-rexx-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/regina-rexx-doc/COPYING-LIB regina-rexx-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/regina-rexx-devel/COPYING-LIB regina-rexx.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/regina-rexx/COPYING-LIB regina-rexx-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/regina-rexx-libs/COPYING-LIB regina-rexx.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/rexx regina-rexx.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/rxqueue regina-rexx.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/rxstack regina-rexx-libs.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libregina.so.3.9 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings, 4 badness; has taken 3.4 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- regina-rexx-libs: /usr/lib64/regina-rexx/addons/libregutil.so regina-rexx-libs: /usr/lib64/regina-rexx/addons/librxtest1.so regina-rexx-libs: /usr/lib64/regina-rexx/addons/librxtest2.so Source checksums ---------------- https://sourceforge.net/projects/regina-rexx/files/regina-rexx/3.9.4/regina-rexx-3.9.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 64f9afdf9bbf7280cffd9efc1ca25cadf6dc59467452cba467aa63cef1815fa4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a4002237d0c625ded6a270c407643f49738de4eb755b68abdbf69c3f306d18be diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- regina-rexx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit) libregina.so.3()(64bit) libregina.so.3(regina_2.0)(64bit) regina-rexx-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) regina-rexx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config /usr/bin/sh libregina.so.3()(64bit) regina-rexx-libs(x86-64) regina-rexx-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libreadline.so.8()(64bit) libregina.so.3()(64bit) libregina.so.3(REXXSAA_API)(64bit) libregina.so.3(regina_2.2)(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) regina-rexx-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): regina-rexx-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): regina-rexx-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- regina-rexx: regina-rexx regina-rexx(x86-64) regina-rexx-devel: pkgconfig(libregina) regina-rexx-devel regina-rexx-devel(x86-64) regina-rexx-libs: libregina.so.3()(64bit) libregina.so.3(REXXSAA_API)(64bit) libregina.so.3(regina_2.0)(64bit) libregina.so.3(regina_2.2)(64bit) libregina.so.3(regina_3.1)(64bit) libregina.so.3(regina_3.3)(64bit) libregina.so.3(regina_3.7)(64bit) libregutil.so()(64bit) librxtest1.so()(64bit) librxtest2.so()(64bit) regina-rexx-libs regina-rexx-libs(x86-64) regina-rexx-doc: regina-rexx-doc regina-rexx-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) regina-rexx-debuginfo regina-rexx-debuginfo(x86-64) regina-rexx-debugsource: regina-rexx-debugsource regina-rexx-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2023023 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, Python, Java, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Created attachment 1918104 [details] license check
> - I think you can just BR on systemd-rpm-macros, no need for systemd-devel ./configure checks for libsystemd, that's why I used that BR
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/regina-rexx/regina-rexx.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/regina-rexx/regina-rexx-3.9.5-1.fc38.src.rpm Changelog: - update to 3.9.5 - update license list - misc specfile fixes
LGTM, APPROVED
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo regina-rexx 2023023 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48348 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo regina-rexx f37 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48349 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo regina-rexx f36 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48350
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/regina-rexx
FEDORA-2022-abd3f35d66 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-abd3f35d66
FEDORA-2022-abd3f35d66 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-1a4daf84c5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-1a4daf84c5
FEDORA-2022-e931f0b04c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e931f0b04c
FEDORA-2022-1a4daf84c5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-1a4daf84c5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-1a4daf84c5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-e931f0b04c has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-e931f0b04c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e931f0b04c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-e931f0b04c has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-1a4daf84c5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.