Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/googleapis/googleapis.spec SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/googleapis/googleapis-0-0.1.20220213git7c7a99a.fc35.src.rpm Koji URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82765596 Description: Public interface definitions of Google APIs Fedora Account System Username: fale
- No need of %build section - No need of debug_package part About file ownership, package should own also %{_includedir}/google: - Add "%dir %{_includedir}/google" - Change to %{_includedir}/google/* This causes the following warning with fedora-review, other packages also own %{_includedir}/google: [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/google(gperftools-devel, sparsehash-devel, protobuf-c- devel, protobuf-devel) - Package should have a -devel subpackage for proto files like `protobuf` or `protobuf-c` do. - You may want to switch to rpmautospec, https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/index.html For the `Release` tag you check https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/shdoc.spec on how you can use it.
Thanks for the suggestions! I've rebuilt it: Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/googleapis/googleapis.spec SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/googleapis/googleapis-0-1.20220213git7c7a99a.fc35.src.rpm Koji URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82765597
Sorry, wrong koji link: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83060093
I've noticed that I missed one of the points in the previous build. This new build should address them all! Thanks a lot Mikel :-). SPEC: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/googleapis/googleapis.spec SRPM: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/googleapis/googleapis-0-1.20220213git7c7a99a.fc35.src.rpm Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84321219
Thanks for doing the changes, package approved, but please change the order of `snapinfo` and `shortcommit` %global definitions. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0". 959 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2053935-googleapis/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/google(protobuf- c-devel, protobuf-devel, gperftools-devel, sparsehash-devel) [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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/googleapis/googleapis/archive/7c7a99a90e2d898aad4790107486d3e21167443f/googleapis-7c7a99a.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9c911320682287bf5d22e6da84be56355c95068d8bcb903e5d6e3cae04c7936a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9c911320682287bf5d22e6da84be56355c95068d8bcb903e5d6e3cae04c7936a Requires -------- googleapis-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- googleapis-devel: googleapis-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2053935 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, Python, Perl, PHP, C/C++, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/googleapis
FEDORA-2022-e1d7d67da8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e1d7d67da8
FEDORA-2022-e1d7d67da8 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-eba32d3c5a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eba32d3c5a
FEDORA-2022-a93fd35df9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a93fd35df9
FEDORA-2022-eba32d3c5a 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-eba32d3c5a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eba32d3c5a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-a93fd35df9 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 --advisory=FEDORA-2022-a93fd35df9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a93fd35df9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-eba32d3c5a has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-a93fd35df9 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.