Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/vcs-diff-lint-review/fedora-37-x86_64/04878257-vcs-diff-lint/vcs-diff-lint.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/vcs-diff-lint-review/fedora-37-x86_64/04878257-vcs-diff-lint/vcs-diff-lint-1-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: From within a VCS directory (only Git is supported for now), first run code analyzers (e.g. PyLint) against the old code (before changes), then run analyzers against the actual code (not yet pushed changes), perform a diff and finally print a set of added (or even fixed, as opt-in) analyzers' warnings. Fedora Account System Username: praiskup Upstream pull request: https://pagure.io/copr/copr/pull-request/2325#
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/praiskup/vcs-diff-lint-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04884947-vcs-diff-lint/vcs-diff-lint.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/praiskup/vcs-diff-lint-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04884947-vcs-diff-lint/vcs-diff-lint-1-1.fc38.src.rpm Moved to: https://github.com/fedora-copr/vcs-diff-lint Please take a look.
Hello Pavel, Thank you for the package, it looks good to me. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkyjovsk/Documents/pkg-reviews/2130897-vcs-diff- lint/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]: 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [?]: 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]: 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) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 31, packages: 1 vcs-diff-lint.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vcs-diff-lint vcs-diff-lint.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vcs-diff-lint-csdiff-pylint 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Requires -------- vcs-diff-lint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 csdiff Provides -------- vcs-diff-lint: vcs-diff-lint Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2130897 --plugins Python Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, Haskell, C/C++, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Maybe one note: can you please add `%build` section even if it's empty? rpmlint suggests it: "Even if some packages don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to provide additional 'under the hood' functionality, such as injection of automatic -debuginfo subpackages. Add the section, even if empty."
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/vcs-diff-lint-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04913283-vcs-diff-lint/vcs-diff-lint.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/vcs-diff-lint-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04913283-vcs-diff-lint/vcs-diff-lint-1-1.git.6.5ce5d2e.fc38.src.rpm > can you please add `%build` section even if it's empty? Thank you for the review. This is now fixed, PTAL.
Thank you for the quick fix!
Thanks! Requesting branches. $ fedpkg request-repo vcs-diff-lint 2130897 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48178
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vcs-diff-lint
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e47a6664e7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e47a6664e7
FEDORA-2022-ea8e7d6eae has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ea8e7d6eae
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a5b1c0d190 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a5b1c0d190
FEDORA-2022-85463647ba has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-85463647ba
FEDORA-2022-ea8e7d6eae 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-2022-ea8e7d6eae \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ea8e7d6eae See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e47a6664e7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e47a6664e7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a5b1c0d190 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-2022-a5b1c0d190 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-85463647ba 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-85463647ba \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-85463647ba See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-85463647ba has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a5b1c0d190 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e47a6664e7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-984e1ce993 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.