Spec URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/diff-so-fancy.spec SRPM URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/diff-so-fancy-1.4.3-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: diff-so-fancy strives to make your diffs human readable instead of machine readable. This helps improve code quality and helps you spot defects faster. Fedora Account System Username: principis Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94803854
Two minor issues: [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/diff-so-fancy [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/diff-so-fancy => Either write %{_datadir}/%{name}/ instead of %{_datadir}/%{name}/DiffHighlight.pm or explicitly add %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/ [!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) missing? => https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/#_versioned_module_compat_requires 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/diff-so-fancy [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/diff-so-fancy [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 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 Perl: [!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) missing? ===== 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. [?]: 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. [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 ------- Checking: diff-so-fancy-1.4.3-1.fc38.noarch.rpm diff-so-fancy-1.4.3-1.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/tmpzdhyibua')] checks: 31, packages: 2 diff-so-fancy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary diff-so-fancy ============================================================================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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 diff-so-fancy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary diff-so-fancy 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/so-fancy/diff-so-fancy/archive/v1.4.3/diff-so-fancy-v1.4.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2b88a1d1cc3bd63a0120c668125019aa5b65ad5c235c49d81431c5d89a86b137 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2b88a1d1cc3bd63a0120c668125019aa5b65ad5c235c49d81431c5d89a86b137 Requires -------- diff-so-fancy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(:VERSION) perl(Cwd) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Spec) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(warnings) Provides -------- diff-so-fancy: diff-so-fancy Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2150097 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Perl, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, fonts, Python, PHP, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks! I've updated the spec and srpm. I originally left out the requires because this is just a Perl script, not a module. But no harm in including it! :)
LGTM, approved!
Thanks for the review!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/diff-so-fancy
FEDORA-2023-cf0de2a5d2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cf0de2a5d2
FEDORA-2023-a8dbd6efd9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a8dbd6efd9
FEDORA-2023-cf0de2a5d2 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-cf0de2a5d2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cf0de2a5d2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-a8dbd6efd9 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-2023-a8dbd6efd9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a8dbd6efd9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-cf0de2a5d2 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-a8dbd6efd9 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.