Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/swatchdog.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/swatchdog-3.2.4-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: The Simple WATCHdog started out as swatch, the "simple watchdog" for activity monitoring log files produced by UNIX's syslog facility. It has since been evolving into a utility that can monitor just about any type of log. The name has been changed to satisfy a request made by the old Swiss watch company. Fedora Account System Username: spot NOTE: This is the new name for the "swatch" package, which has been in Fedora for quite some time now.
MUST fix items: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- perl is invoked during %build, so this needs `BuildRequires: perl-interpreter`. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/#_build_dependencies -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't believe the obsoletes here will work as intended. It needs to include a release one higher than the last build. Obsoletes: %{oldname} <= 3.2.3-39 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The COPYING file must be marked as %license. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This package creates an unowned directory of /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/auto. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SHOULD fix items (non-blocker to the review, but consider fixing later): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The requires on perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_... is redundant and should be removed. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/#_versioned_module_compat_requires_or_perl_libs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patch files are missing comments or links to upstream issues. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is mixed use of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Consider using the same style consistently through the spec file. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_using_buildroot_and_optflags_vs_rpm_build_root_and_rpm_opt_flags -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not in the guidelines yet, but %patchN usage is deprecated in upstream RPM. Consider using %autopatch, %patch N, or %patch -P N. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/swatchdog-3.2.4-2.fc39.src.rpm New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/swatchdog.spec
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6241060 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2129442-swatchdog/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06241060-swatchdog/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.
Package is approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [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]: 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 14740 bytes in 4 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. ===== 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/swatchdog
FEDORA-2023-e9b2564fa5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-e9b2564fa5
FEDORA-2023-7f72743827 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-7f72743827
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-dd1b8423de has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-dd1b8423de
FEDORA-2023-7f72743827 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-2023-7f72743827 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-7f72743827 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-dd1b8423de has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-dd1b8423de See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-e9b2564fa5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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-e9b2564fa5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-e9b2564fa5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-dd1b8423de has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-e9b2564fa5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-7f72743827 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.