Spec URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13YMLbyeAEn1VUICgllblf03Oc4iSeJiS/view?usp=sharing SRPM URL: https://github.com/hanoglu/TermiC/releases/download/V1.2.2/termic-1.2.2.noarch.rpm Description: GCC powered interactive C/C++ shell created with BASH Fedora Account System Username: hanoglu
Thanks for this package. Could you make a build on Copr ( https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/ )?
Copr build done, repository is hanoglu/termic
New Spec and SRPM URLs: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/hanoglu/termic/fedora-36-x86_64/05019372-termic/termic.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/hanoglu/termic/fedora-36-x86_64/05019372-termic/termic-1.2.2-1.fc36.src.rpm
For information on becoming packager see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/
Should I do any other step?
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. [!]: 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/termic/2140310-termic/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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 [-]: 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. [?]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [?]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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. [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. [?]: 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]: 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 termic.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary termic termic.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary termic++ termic.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Requires -------- termic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash bash gcc gcc-c++ Provides -------- termic: termic Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2140310 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, Ruby, Haskell, R, Ocaml, Perl, Java, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Initial comments: a) In the spec file, change the line Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz to Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz b) Please mark license file in files section of the spec file. The files that will be installed should be listed, not just the entire directory. README is typically marked %doc. c) The change log seems to have repeated entries. Your name also does not seem to appear correctly. d) Consider doing some informal package reviews as it will improve your packaging skills and is one way of finding a sponsor. You may wish to read: https://jamezone.org/pleasure/software/Fedora/packager/
It's been a long time, but I made the necessary arrangements. Can you check it out again? New Spec and SRPM URLs: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/hanoglu/termic/fedora-39-x86_64/06316910-termic/termic.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/hanoglu/termic/fedora-39-x86_64/06316910-termic/termic-1.3-1.fc39.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6316965 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2140310-termic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06316965-termic/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.
Do i need to do anything else?
*** Bug 2232873 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Will examine it. Have several other reviews to finish, so it may take a few days. The line Source0: %{url}/raw/copr/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Should be similar to: Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags
Ok, thanks. I changed the Source0 line to: Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz And changed the git branch name to "1.3". New Spec and SRPM URLs: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/hanoglu/termic/fedora-39-x86_64/06320135-termic/termic.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/hanoglu/termic/fedora-39-x86_64/06320135-termic/termic-1.3-1.fc39.src.rpm
[fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 1984514 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6316965 to 6331113
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6331113 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2140310-termic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06331113-termic/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 Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv3'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/termic/2140310-termic/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. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 9739 bytes in 1 files. [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). [x]: 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. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: termic-1.3-1.fc38.noarch.rpm termic-1.3-1.fc38.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/tmpf70_3fm0')] checks: 31, packages: 2 termic.spec: W: no-%build-section ==== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.2 s ==== 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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hanoglu/termic/archive/1.3/termic-1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 65001650aa8b8b6ef9393d26b94c8bb5f98317b182d98ba7813510b9c376421a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 65001650aa8b8b6ef9393d26b94c8bb5f98317b182d98ba7813510b9c376421a Requires -------- termic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash bash gcc gcc-c++ Provides -------- termic: termic Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2140310 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, PHP, Ruby, fonts, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Python, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please use SPDX identifier for the license use either GPL-3.0-only GPL-3.0-or-later https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/ b) termic.1 does not need to be packaged in the docs folder, as it is in /usr/share/man1 c) Try preserving timestamps when installing: install -D -p -m 755 %{name} %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name} install -D -p -m 644 %{name}.1 %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1 d) there seems to be a lint warning: rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpf70_3fm0')]
I have fixed a,b and c. I checked out d on my local with rpmlint command and there is no warning message from my side $ rpmlint termic-1.3-1.fc38.noarch.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 checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Can you upload new spec and srpm files?
New Spec and SRPM URLs: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/hanoglu/termic/fedora-39-x86_64/06340327-termic/termic.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/hanoglu/termic/fedora-39-x86_64/06340327-termic/termic-1.3-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1985068 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6331113 to 6341328
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6341328 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2140310-termic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06341328-termic/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.
Thanks. Approved. You will need to find a sponsor. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/
Hello. I'd be happy to sponsor you if you are still willing to move this forward. And sorry for the delay.
Hello. Yes, I am willing to move this forward. What is the next step I should take? Thanks.
Great! Can you go into the fedora account system ( https://accounts.fedoraproject.org ) and agree to the FPCA agreement? Once you have done that I can sponsor you and you can continue with importing the package...
Ok, I signed the FPCA agreement.
I've sponsored you into the packager group now. You should be able to continue the process from: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/#add_package_to_source_code_management_scm_system_and_set_owner Please let me know if you have any questions! Welcome to packaging!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/termic
FEDORA-2023-e4a4b48daa has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-e4a4b48daa
FEDORA-2023-e4a4b48daa has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.