Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/parserng/parserng.spec SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/parserng/parserng-0.1.8-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: ParserNG is a powerful open-source math tool that parses and evaluates algebraic expressions and also knows how to handle a lot of mathematical expressions. Fedora Account System Username: jvanek
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file ADDITIONAL_LICENSE_INFO is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: parserng (description) [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [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]: 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 Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Can't find any BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== 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. [-]: %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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== 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: 2 parserng.noarch: E: summary-too-long ParserNG is a powerful open-source math tool that parses and evaluates algebraic expressions and also knows how to handle a lot of mathematical expressions. parserng.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot ParserNG is a powerful open-source math tool that parses and evaluates algebraic expressions and also knows how to handle a lot of mathematical expressions. parserng-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99% parserng.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary parserng parserng.noarch: W: no-documentation parserng.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary ParserNG parserng.noarch: E: description-line-too-long also parser.MathExpression and parser.cmd.ParserCmd are here for cmdline service 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s Requires -------- parserng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless) /usr/bin/bash java-headless javapackages-filesystem parserng-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem parserng Provides -------- parserng: ParserNG mvn(com.github.gbenroscience:parser-ng) mvn(com.github.gbenroscience:parser-ng:pom:) parser-ng parserng parserng-javadoc: parserng-javadoc Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2141688 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Java Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Python, PHP, Haskell, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Weird changelog. Please verify it is as you expected and fix fixable rpmlint issues.
Thanx! Fixed what could be fixed. Hoepfully it is ok now.
jvanek jvanek 13:16:43 ~ Desktop $ fedpkg request-repo parserng 2141688 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/49622 jvanek jvanek 13:17:41 ~ Desktop $ fedpkg request-branch --repo parserng f37 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/49623 jvanek jvanek 13:17:55 ~ Desktop $ fedpkg request-branch --repo parserng f36 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/49624
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/parserng
FEDORA-2022-a9f1cb6b27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a9f1cb6b27
FEDORA-2022-a9f1cb6b27 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-a9f1cb6b27 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a9f1cb6b27 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-e4eeca21e8 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-e4eeca21e8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e4eeca21e8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-a9f1cb6b27 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-e4eeca21e8 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.