Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tiosmod/tiosmod.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tiosmod/tiosmod-0.2.7^20201019g7c0562c-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: tiosmod is a computer-based unlocking and optimizing program aimed at official TI-68k calculators OS. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89610078
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression "GPLv2 and WTFPL". The correct expression is probably "GPL-2.0-only AND WTFPL". See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Package is under multiple licences, but licensing breakdown is not documented in the spec. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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 23395 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]: 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]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tiosmod-0.2.7^20201019g7c0562c-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm tiosmod-debuginfo-0.2.7^20201019g7c0562c-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm tiosmod-debugsource-0.2.7^20201019g7c0562c-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm tiosmod-0.2.7^20201019g7c0562c-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================================ rpmlint session starts =========================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp134jqqrg')] checks: 31, packages: 4 tiosmod.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tiosmod ============= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ============ Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tiosmod-debuginfo-0.2.7^20201019g7c0562c-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============================================ rpmlint session starts =========================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp0rf3r4ue')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ============= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ============ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3 tiosmod.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tiosmod 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/debrouxl/tiosmod/archive/7c0562c49e8f33d089f78a76a0f46d8f8a04a9b7/tiosmod-7c0562c49e8f33d089f78a76a0f46d8f8a04a9b7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d8fad69a754f14e73e89715bbdbe26be54935f6c5922d5bc04dbb35f1edae42d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d8fad69a754f14e73e89715bbdbe26be54935f6c5922d5bc04dbb35f1edae42d Requires -------- tiosmod (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tiosmod-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): tiosmod-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- tiosmod: tiosmod tiosmod(x86-64) tiosmod-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) tiosmod-debuginfo tiosmod-debuginfo(x86-64) tiosmod-debugsource: tiosmod-debugsource tiosmod-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2107910 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, PHP, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tiosmod/tiosmod.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tiosmod/tiosmod-0.2.7^20201019g7c0562c-1.fc40.src.rpm Changelog: - convert license field to SPDX and document license breakdown
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6342188 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2107910-tiosmod/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06342188-tiosmod/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Looks good to me. Package approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tiosmod
FEDORA-2023-eba0ec890a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-eba0ec890a
FEDORA-2023-eba0ec890a has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-24347ef9b2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-24347ef9b2
FEDORA-2023-2f0c94f62b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2f0c94f62b
FEDORA-2023-24347ef9b2 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-24347ef9b2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-24347ef9b2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-2f0c94f62b has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-2f0c94f62b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2f0c94f62b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-2f0c94f62b has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-24347ef9b2 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.