Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/edflib.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/edflib-1.20-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: EDFlib is a programming library for C/C++ for reading and writing EDF+ and BDF+ files. It also reads “old style” EDF and BDF files. EDF means European Data Format. BDF is the 24-bits version of EDF. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=78934866 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=78934988 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=78935024
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]: 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. [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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (2 clause)", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/maks/rpmbuild/review/2023556-edflib/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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 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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: edflib-1.20-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm edflib-devel-1.20-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm edflib-debuginfo-1.20-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm edflib-debugsource-1.20-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm edflib-1.20-1.fc36.src.rpm edflib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation edflib.src:82: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: edflib-debuginfo-1.20-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://www.teuniz.net/edflib/edflib_120.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 53b1b4270cdd221f1823a1e2b22ae05e467cb2348dd8aeca8099fc271999ef90 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 53b1b4270cdd221f1823a1e2b22ae05e467cb2348dd8aeca8099fc271999ef90 Requires -------- edflib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) edflib-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): edflib(x86-64) libedf.so.0.1()(64bit) edflib-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): edflib-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- edflib: edflib edflib(x86-64) libedf.so.0.1()(64bit) edflib-devel: edflib-devel edflib-devel(x86-64) edflib-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) edflib-debuginfo edflib-debuginfo(x86-64) libedf.so.0.1-1.20-1.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) edflib-debugsource: edflib-debugsource edflib-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/maks/rpmbuild/review/2023556-edflib/srpm/edflib.spec 2021-11-16 09:42:28.779958880 +0100 +++ /home/maks/rpmbuild/review/2023556-edflib/srpm-unpacked/edflib.spec 2021-11-16 03:01:20.000000000 +0100 @@ -25,7 +25,4 @@ Source1: Makefile -# Add support for big-endian platforms (fixes #9) -# https://gitlab.com/Teuniz/EDFlib/-/merge_requests/1 -# See also: https://gitlab.com/Teuniz/EDFlib/-/issues/9 Patch0: 0001-Add-support-for-big-endian-platforms.patch Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 2023556 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, R, Python, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
XXX PACKAGE APPROVED XXX Optional: You may also add a link to the comprehensive documentation hosted on the upstream's website: https://www.teuniz.net/edflib/index.html
Thank you for the review. Adding a documentation link to the description is a good idea; I will do that before importing.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/edflib
FEDORA-2021-37492e47dc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-37492e47dc
FEDORA-2021-8a39973f1b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8a39973f1b
FEDORA-2021-0f2bbd2fc6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0f2bbd2fc6
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-bb11ee4308 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-bb11ee4308
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-754d80aa59 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-754d80aa59
FEDORA-2021-0f2bbd2fc6 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-2021-0f2bbd2fc6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0f2bbd2fc6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-754d80aa59 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-754d80aa59 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-bb11ee4308 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-bb11ee4308 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-8a39973f1b 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-2021-8a39973f1b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8a39973f1b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-37492e47dc 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-2021-37492e47dc \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-37492e47dc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-8a39973f1b has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-754d80aa59 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-0f2bbd2fc6 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-37492e47dc has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.