Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/distrobox/distrobox.spec SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/distrobox/distrobox-1.2.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Use any Linux distribution inside your terminal. Distrobox, like Toolbx, uses podman or docker to create containers using the Linux distribution of your choice. Created container will be tightly integrated with the host, allowing to share the HOME directory of the user, external storage, external USB devices and graphical apps (X11/Wayland) and audio. Fedora Account System Username: alciregi Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80230917
Latest version. FWIW this is the COPR repository https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/alciregi/distrobox/ Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/distrobox/distrobox.spec SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/distrobox/distrobox-1.2.9-1.fc35.src.rpm
In the meanwhile Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/distrobox/distrobox.spec SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/distrobox/distrobox-1.2.10-1.fc35.src.rpm
@germano.massullo I see no news about the fedora-review bug report :-/
I'm happy to take this review to unblock
Looks /mostly/ fine, APPROVED Some changes to make: - this should have 'BuildArch: noarch' as I'm pretty sure it would work fine on every arch podman is built on, and podman does seem to be built on all Fedora arches: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1876353 (container availability YMMV of course) - the __brp_mangle_shebangs_exclude discussed in https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox/issues/127 is not present in this spec. Please make sure it's not dropped, and per https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox/issues/127#issuecomment-1016138142 -- it should only be needed for distrobox-enter and distrobox-export, so let's exclude only those files from mangling Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2034246-distrobox/licensecheck.txt [-]: %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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 5 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). [!]: 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. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. => should be marked noarch [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. => no upstream test cases [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]: 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]: 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 (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox/archive/1.2.10/distrobox-1.2.10.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 34487398bc89fc141ba5fcae4d9136598e4c3df5584fbe1ec67d4c9a45040748 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 34487398bc89fc141ba5fcae4d9136598e4c3df5584fbe1ec67d4c9a45040748 Requires -------- distrobox (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (/usr/bin/podman or /usr/bin/docker) /usr/bin/basename /usr/bin/find /usr/bin/grep /usr/bin/sed /usr/bin/sh Provides -------- distrobox: distrobox distrobox(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2034246 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Haskell, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, Java, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thank you. Sure, I will make the changes. I had a doubt: Requires: (%{_bindir}/podman or %{_bindir}/docker) Is it OK? The context is here: https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox/issues/37#issuecomment-997797447
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/distrobox
FEDORA-2022-be777c0be0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-be777c0be0
FEDORA-2022-64ed851ed5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-64ed851ed5
FEDORA-2022-64ed851ed5 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-2022-64ed851ed5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-64ed851ed5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-be777c0be0 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-2022-be777c0be0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-be777c0be0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-64ed851ed5 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-be777c0be0 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.