Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/adobes1/fim-rpm/main/fim.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/adobes1/fim-rpm/raw/main/fim-0.6-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: FIM (Fbi IMproved) is a highly customizable and scriptable image viewer targeted at the users who are comfortable with software like the Vim. FIM is multidevice: it has X support (via the SDL library), it supports ASCII art output (via the aalib and libcaca libraries), and because it derives from the Fbi image viewer (by Gerd Hoffmann), it can display images in the Linux framebuffer console, too. It offers many options for scaling, orienting, listing and rearranging the ordering of images. Fedora Account System Username: adobes Copr project URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/adobes/fim/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5602968 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2176131-fim/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05602968-fim/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.
My notes: - Change the license name to the commonly used GPLv2 and GPLv3 (look at files config.guess and config.sub) - Add version-release to the changelog entry - Take a look at the checksum error for the key - Resolve "Bad spec filename" error - Check all failures from Fedora review tool Output from the Fedora review tool from comment#1: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Check did not completechecksum differs and there are problems running diff. Please verify manually. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: 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 2", "FSF All Permissive License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "[generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later". 154 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/fim/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. [!]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 696320 bytes in 16 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]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/fim/srpm- unpacked/fim.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: fim-0.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm fim-debuginfo-0.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm fim-debugsource-0.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm fim-0.6-1.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/tmpf11uix4g')] checks: 31, packages: 4 fim.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog fim.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog fim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog fim-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: fim-debuginfo-0.6-1.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/tmpfq9qtokp')] checks: 31, packages: 1 fim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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: 3 fim-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog fim.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog fim-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- http://savannah.nongnu.org/people/viewgpg.php?user_id=59744.gpg : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b496ac7740533d36e31cec405434e16947e8af5c48c36be89240bfb4f7a479f3 http://download.savannah.nongnu.org/releases/fbi-improved/fim-0.6-trunk.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 41782fd21d292ec294cc6c849b10c22f63b551d10ebafe5472e7c1b065ae67fa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 41782fd21d292ec294cc6c849b10c22f63b551d10ebafe5472e7c1b065ae67fa http://download.savannah.nongnu.org/releases/fbi-improved/fim-0.6-trunk.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 31887c1fdd20bb1bde09ef3d65dd1e16df4af35cbd927d4356736c1d14749b55 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 31887c1fdd20bb1bde09ef3d65dd1e16df4af35cbd927d4356736c1d14749b55 Requires -------- fim (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash glibc libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libaa.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcaca.so.0()(64bit) libdjvulibre.so.21()(64bit) libexif.so.12()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgif.so.7()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) libreadline.so.8()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtiff.so.5()(64bit) libtiff.so.5(LIBTIFF_4.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) fim-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fim-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- fim: fim fim(x86-64) fim{?_isa} fim-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) fim-debuginfo fim-debuginfo(x86-64) fim-debugsource: fim-debugsource fim-debugsource(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: fim-0.6-trunk/configure.ac:44 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 fim --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Java, Ocaml, Python, fonts, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/adobes1/fim-rpm/main/fim.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/adobes1/fim-rpm/raw/main/fim-0.6-1.fc37.src.rpm Changelog: - Fix License field to correctly reflect licenses used in source files - Add version-release to changelog entry - Change Source2 to reference local gpg key instead of URL, since it was causing issues
Created attachment 1950242 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5602968 to 5632656
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5632656 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2176131-fim/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05632656-fim/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.
I can see a lot of errors were fixed, however, one has been added: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: http://download.savannah.nongnu.org/releases/fbi- improved/fim-0.6-trunk.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ However, I've manually tested the download and it works just fine (also no change in the spec). It might be related to some outage on the Source server. LGTM :) Next, we'll find a sponsor for you
Additional update because upstream published their public key as a downloadable file (which should work without any issues this time). Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/adobes1/fim-rpm/main/fim.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/adobes1/fim-rpm/raw/main/fim-0.6-1.fc37.src.rpm Changelog: - Changed Source2 to public key URL from upstream - Fixed macro typo in Provides
The license tag does not conform to current Packaging guidelines <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/>. The value must be a valid SPDX expression. I.e. it needs to be converted into "GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later".
Thanks for noticing Peto, I had the old licensing guideline opened when I suggested the change for the License tag. Adam please change it regarding to the Petr's comment
Thanks for pointing that out, it should be fixed now. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/adobes1/fim-rpm/main/fim.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/adobes1/fim-rpm/raw/main/fim-0.6-1.fc37.src.rpm Changelog: - Changed license field value to valid SPDX license expression
Created attachment 1952013 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5651031 to 5682832
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5682832 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2176131-fim/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05682832-fim/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.
Yes, it looks good now, thanks Adam for the fix :)
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fim