Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04639760-vim-mediawiki/vim-mediawiki.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04639760-vim-mediawiki/vim-mediawiki-0.2%5E1.26e5737-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Syntax highlighting for MediaWiki-based projects, such as Wikipedia. Fedora Account System Username: carlwgeorge
Unofficial review: 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/vim-mediawiki/2107962- vim-mediawiki/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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/chikamichi/mediawiki.vim/archive/26e5737264354be41cb11d16d481 32779795e168/mediawiki.vim-26e5737.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : de3f45952ff9f3cd165a1266e243521e8ed8cea5b7 033b6120154a984f35a63c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : de3f45952ff9f3cd165a1266e243521e8ed8cea5b7 033b6120154a984f35a63c Requires -------- vim-mediawiki (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vim-filesystem Provides -------- vim-mediawiki: vim-mediawiki Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2107962 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, Haskell, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, R, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Should the README also be indicated as the license file, or should a separate license file be added? b) The releases are few, and commits are infrequent, so packaging the latest commit seems fine.
Package looks good to me, based on fedora-review output and my own examination. PACKAGE APPROVED.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim-mediawiki
FEDORA-2022-19d77d02d7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-19d77d02d7
FEDORA-2022-19d77d02d7 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.