Spec URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/btrfs-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/btrfs-assistant-1.6.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: GUI management tool to make managing a Btrfs filesystem easier. Fedora Account System Username: principis Project: https://gitlab.com/btrfs-assistant/btrfs-assistant
=> Please check if polkit or another package should be required to provide ownership: "Directories without known owners: /usr/share/polkit-1, /usr/share/polkit-1/actions" Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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". 61 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/btrfs- assistant/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/polkit-1, /usr/share/polkit-1/actions [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. [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]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/btrfs-assistant/btrfs-assistant/-/archive/1.6.1/btrfs-assistant-1.6.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a5a9451905c79402f438e22013f03858ef977111f57019f7cc15efe829c38c5d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a5a9451905c79402f438e22013f03858ef977111f57019f7cc15efe829c38c5d Requires -------- btrfs-assistant (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash config(btrfs-assistant) hicolor-icon-theme libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libbtrfsutil.so.1()(64bit) libbtrfsutil.so.1(LIBBTRFSUTIL_1.1)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) btrfs-assistant-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): btrfs-assistant-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- btrfs-assistant: application() application(btrfs-assistant.desktop) btrfs-assistant btrfs-assistant(x86-64) config(btrfs-assistant) btrfs-assistant-debuginfo: btrfs-assistant-debuginfo btrfs-assistant-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) btrfs-assistant-debugsource: btrfs-assistant-debugsource btrfs-assistant-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name btrfs-assistant --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Java, Haskell, R, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thank you! I've updated the spec/srpm: Spec URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/btrfs-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/btrfs-assistant-1.6.1-1.fc35.src.rpm
Great - that resolves the issue in question Approved and looking forward to using this package
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/btrfs-assistant
FEDORA-2022-2512638107 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2512638107
FEDORA-2022-628223eb38 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-628223eb38
FEDORA-2022-2512638107 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-2022-2512638107 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2512638107 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-628223eb38 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-2022-628223eb38 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-628223eb38 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-2512638107 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-628223eb38 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.