Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tty-copy.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tty-copy-0.2.2-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: tty-copy is a utility for copying content to the system clipboard from anywhere via a TTY and terminal using the ANSI OSC52 sequence. It works in any terminal session, whether local, remote (e.g. SSH), or even nested therein. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard
Taking this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated 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]: 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. [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". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2066755-tty- copy/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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [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. [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: [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: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jirutka/tty-copy/archive/v0.2.2/tty-copy-0.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5dad7c9eeb1f13747f989e38c4165edd367e7c6c348545b28ac8c1fb50cf4716 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5dad7c9eeb1f13747f989e38c4165edd367e7c6c348545b28ac8c1fb50cf4716 Requires -------- tty-copy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tty-copy-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): tty-copy-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- tty-copy: tty-copy tty-copy(x86-64) tty-copy-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) tty-copy-debuginfo tty-copy-debuginfo(x86-64) tty-copy-debugsource: tty-copy-debugsource tty-copy-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2066755 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, fonts, Python, R, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Everything looks reasonable here, so... PACKAGE APPROVED.
Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. -> this is caused by autorelease, isn't it? The built package have it: tty-copy-0.2.2-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm Thanks Neal.
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/43103
I plan to build this on F35 as well and apparently I need to add %set_build_flags explicitly: %build %set_build_flags %make_build
FEDORA-2022-bc8511032f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bc8511032f
FEDORA-2022-bc8511032f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-8a480d55c0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8a480d55c0
FEDORA-2022-a01180e0b3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a01180e0b3
FEDORA-2022-8a480d55c0 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-2022-8a480d55c0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8a480d55c0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-8a480d55c0 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-a01180e0b3 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-a01180e0b3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a01180e0b3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-a01180e0b3 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.