Spec URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/mooltipass-udev.spec SRPM URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/mooltipass-udev-2019120501-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Udev rules to allow user access to Mooltipass devices for use with Moolticute. Fedora Account System Username: principis This packages splits out the udev rules from the moolticute package to allow for separate updating. These udev rules aren't strictly necessary for moolticute to function correctly, since the moolticuted systemd service is run as root.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5223414 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2160449-mooltipass-udev/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05223414-mooltipass-udev/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
Fixed changelog Spec URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/mooltipass-udev.spec SRPM URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/mooltipass-udev-2019120501-1.fc37.src.rpm
Created attachment 1937594 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5223414 to 5223525
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5223525 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2160449-mooltipass-udev/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05223525-mooltipass-udev/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
Updated to new release: Spec URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/mooltipass-udev.spec SRPM URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/mooltipass-udev-2023011200-1.fc37.src.rpm
Created attachment 1938381 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5223525 to 5238012
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5238012 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2160449-mooltipass-udev/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05238012-mooltipass-udev/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
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/mooltipass- udev/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 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: mooltipass-udev-2023011200-1.fc38.noarch.rpm mooltipass-udev-2023011200-1.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/tmp3bisyj3s')] checks: 31, packages: 2 mooltipass-udev.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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 mooltipass-udev.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mooltipass/mooltipass-udev/releases/download/2023011200/mooltipass-udev-2023011200.tar.gz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bcb6111eee9ca2b4373e3c8a20229b9df0579c330413bb42a148e9fef644ba70 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bcb6111eee9ca2b4373e3c8a20229b9df0579c330413bb42a148e9fef644ba70 https://github.com/mooltipass/mooltipass-udev/archive/2023011200/mooltipass-udev-2023011200.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 00285402ecf887da2a938d8375725fd07553c1ad11e426659a72c42dc0027c82 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00285402ecf887da2a938d8375725fd07553c1ad11e426659a72c42dc0027c82 Requires -------- mooltipass-udev (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): udev Provides -------- mooltipass-udev: mooltipass-udev Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name mooltipass-udev --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, PHP, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, Python, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Based on the review, the package is ready for approval.
Thanks for the review Luya!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mooltipass-udev
FEDORA-2023-458fb5961d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-458fb5961d
FEDORA-2023-458fb5961d has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.