Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkoncek/jurand/fedora-38-x86_64/05589367-jurand/jurand.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkoncek/jurand/fedora-38-x86_64/05589367-jurand/jurand-1.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: A tool for manipulating Java symbols. Fedora Account System Username: mkoncek
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5589376 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2175159-jurand/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05589376-jurand/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.
Updated package: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkoncek/jurand/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05589477-jurand/jurand.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkoncek/jurand/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05589477-jurand/jurand-1.0.1-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1947688 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5589376 to 5589492
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5589492 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2175159-jurand/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05589492-jurand/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.
Updated package: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkoncek/jurand/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05589825-jurand/jurand.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkoncek/jurand/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05589825-jurand/jurand-1.0.2-1.fc39.src.rpm Changes: * Executable installed as /usr/bin/jurand instead of /usr/bin/java_remove_symbols * Changed %changelog entry and email address * Added %dir entries in %files section -- removing RPM warnings
Created attachment 1947703 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5589492 to 5589833
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5589833 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2175159-jurand/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05589833-jurand/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.
Pacakge is approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/jurand/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: jurand-1.0.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm jurand-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm jurand-debugsource-1.0.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm jurand-1.0.2-1.fc39.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/tmpntvpleet')] checks: 31, packages: 4 jurand.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jurand 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: jurand-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc39.x86_64.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/tmpf7rcos8b')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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: 3 jurand.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jurand 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jurand
Package has been built for rawhide. Bodhi update: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d30349c2f7 This update has been submitted for stable by bodhi. Closing review as resolved.
FEDORA-2023-000768c897 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-000768c897
FEDORA-2023-5366df01e7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5366df01e7
FEDORA-2023-000768c897 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-2023-000768c897 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-000768c897 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-5366df01e7 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5366df01e7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-000768c897 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-5366df01e7 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.