Spec URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/trurl/trurl.spec SRPM URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/trurl/trurl-0.2-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: A small command line tool that parses and manipulates URLs, designed to help shell script authors everywhere. Fedora Account System Username: xfgusta
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5740835 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184269-trurl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05740835-trurl/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.
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 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: "curl License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* curl License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/trurl/2184269-trurl/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 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: No rpmlint messages. [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: [-]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: trurl-0.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm trurl-debuginfo-0.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm trurl-debugsource-0.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm trurl-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/tmp286osez2')] checks: 31, packages: 4 ==================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.9 s ==================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: trurl-debuginfo-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/tmpl0sbods4')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ==================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.4 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 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/curl/trurl/archive/trurl-0.2/trurl-0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : acef7d251fc13fc97153d5d6949b50744a5bad8aa93840b0d8509cd754ed704f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : acef7d251fc13fc97153d5d6949b50744a5bad8aa93840b0d8509cd754ed704f Requires -------- trurl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) trurl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): trurl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- trurl: trurl trurl(x86-64) trurl-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) trurl-debuginfo trurl-debuginfo(x86-64) trurl-debugsource: trurl-debugsource trurl-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2184269 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ruby, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, R, Perl, Python, Haskell, Java, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: 1) Builds on other architectures: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/trurl/build/5741073/ 2) Approved
Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176206 would be appreciated if time allows.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/trurl
Thank you for the review! > Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176206 would be appreciated if time allows. Sure, I'll review it soon.