Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mmc-utils/mmc-utils.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mmc-utils/mmc-utils-0.1-1.20230209gitd4c2910.fc39.src.rpm Description: The mmc-utils tools can do the following: * Print and parse extcsd data. * Determine the eMMC writeprotect status. * Set the eMMC writeprotect status. * Set the eMMC data sector size to 4KB by disabling emulation. * Create general purpose partition. * Enable the enhanced user area. * Enable write reliability per partition. * Print the response to STATUS_SEND (CMD13). * Enable the boot partition. * Set Boot Bus Conditions. * Enable the eMMC BKOPS feature. * Permanently enable the eMMC H/W Reset feature. * Permanently disable the eMMC H/W Reset feature. * Send Sanitize command. * Program authentication key for the device. * Counter value for the rpmb device will be read to stdout. * Read from rpmb device to output. * Write to rpmb device from data file. * Enable the eMMC cache feature. * Disable the eMMC cache feature. * Print and parse CID data. * Print and parse CSD data. * Print and parse SCR data. Fedora Account System Username: rathann
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5741241 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184326-mmc-utils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05741241-mmc-utils/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mmc-utils/mmc-utils.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mmc-utils/mmc-utils-0.1-2.20230209gitd4c2910.fc39.src.rpm Fixed build on rawhide.
Created attachment 1955678 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5741241 to 5741503
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5741503 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184326-mmc-utils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05741503-mmc-utils/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.
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mmc-utils/mmc-utils.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mmc-utils/mmc-utils-0~20240305gite1281d4-1.fc39.src.rpm * Tue Mar 19 2024 Dominik Mierzejewski <rpm> 0~20240305gite1281d4-1 - update to latest git snapshot - use correct snapshot versioning - use patch instead of cflags override NOTE: upstream used version 0.1 but dropped it in favour of git short commit in: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/mmc/mmc-utils.git/commit/?id=145c74ab6f2e13a9a8ccdbbf1758afedb8a3965c .
Created attachment 2022594 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5741503 to 7182881
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7182881 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184326-mmc-utils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07182881-mmc-utils/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.
It appears that upstream is vendoring https://github.com/ogay/hmac. It doesn't appear to be in the distribution already and upstream doesn't have a target to build a library I _think_ https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling doesn't apply, but it might be good to get a second opinion there. The vendored code is BSD-3 licensed so I believe the License field should be "License: GPL-2.0-only AND BSD-3-Clause". Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [-]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jcline/devel/package-reviews/2184326-mmc- utils/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. [x]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 858 bytes in 1 files. [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). [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mmc-utils-0~20240305gite1281d4-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm mmc-utils-debuginfo-0~20240305gite1281d4-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm mmc-utils-debugsource-0~20240305gite1281d4-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm mmc-utils-0~20240305gite1281d4-1.fc41.src.rpm ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp30zztjy0')] checks: 32, packages: 4 mmc-utils.src: E: spelling-error ('extcsd', '%description -l en_US extcsd -> extend') mmc-utils.src: E: spelling-error ('eMMC', '%description -l en_US eMMC -> emcee') mmc-utils.src: E: spelling-error ('writeprotect', '%description -l en_US writeprotect -> write protect, write-protect, protectorate') mmc-utils.src: E: spelling-error ('rpmb', '%description -l en_US rpmb -> rpm, rpm b') mmc-utils.src: E: spelling-error ('stdout', '%description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out') mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('extcsd', '%description -l en_US extcsd -> extend') mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('eMMC', '%description -l en_US eMMC -> emcee') mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('writeprotect', '%description -l en_US writeprotect -> write protect, write-protect, protectorate') mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('rpmb', '%description -l en_US rpmb -> rpm, rpm b') mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('stdout', '%description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out') ========= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 0 warnings, 18 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 0.6 s ========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mmc-utils-debuginfo-0~20240305gite1281d4-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpd12dhbgj')] checks: 32, packages: 1 =========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s =========== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 3 mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('extcsd', '%description -l en_US extcsd -> extend') mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('eMMC', '%description -l en_US eMMC -> emcee') mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('writeprotect', '%description -l en_US writeprotect -> write protect, write-protect, protectorate') mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('rpmb', '%description -l en_US rpmb -> rpm, rpm b') mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('stdout', '%description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out') 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/mmc/mmc-utils.git/snapshot/mmc-utils-e1281d4de9166b7254ba30bb58f9191fc2c9e7fb.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b44cab25863381f1744801338649811a05c6030f4dafcb9123ccbdc1f847e311 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b44cab25863381f1744801338649811a05c6030f4dafcb9123ccbdc1f847e311 Requires -------- mmc-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) mmc-utils-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mmc-utils-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mmc-utils: mmc-utils mmc-utils(x86-64) mmc-utils-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) mmc-utils-debuginfo mmc-utils-debuginfo(x86-64) mmc-utils-debugsource: mmc-utils-debugsource mmc-utils-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2184326 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, Python, PHP, Java, Ocaml, R, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Jeremy Cline from comment #8) > It appears that upstream is vendoring https://github.com/ogay/hmac. It > doesn't appear to be in the distribution already and upstream doesn't have a > target to build a library I _think_ > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling doesn't > apply, but it might be good to get a second opinion there. > > The vendored code is BSD-3 licensed so I believe the License field should be > "License: GPL-2.0-only AND BSD-3-Clause". Thanks for catching it. I'll add the required Provides: bundled(hmac) and update the license tag.
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mmc-utils/mmc-utils.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mmc-utils/mmc-utils-0~20240305gite1281d4-2.fc39.src.rpm * Fri Mar 22 2024 Dominik Mierzejewski <rpm> 0~20240305gite1281d4-2 - declare bundled hmac_sha code and update License tag
Created attachment 2023064 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7182881 to 7198766
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7198766 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184326-mmc-utils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07198766-mmc-utils/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.
Okay, there's one new rpmlint warning about an unversioned provide for the bundled hmac stuff, but the guidelines say that's what should be done if there's no clear version upstream which I agree there isn't, and since there hasn't been a change in over a decade I don't think we're about to be inundated with updates. Approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jcline/devel/package-reviews/2184326-mmc- utils/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. [x]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 858 bytes in 1 files. [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). [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mmc-utils-0~20240305gite1281d4-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm mmc-utils-debuginfo-0~20240305gite1281d4-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm mmc-utils-debugsource-0~20240305gite1281d4-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm mmc-utils-0~20240305gite1281d4-2.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpikb84aik')] checks: 32, packages: 4 mmc-utils.spec:20: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(hmac) mmc-utils.src: E: spelling-error ('extcsd', '%description -l en_US extcsd -> extend') mmc-utils.src: E: spelling-error ('eMMC', '%description -l en_US eMMC -> emcee') mmc-utils.src: E: spelling-error ('writeprotect', '%description -l en_US writeprotect -> write protect, write-protect, protectorate') mmc-utils.src: E: spelling-error ('rpmb', '%description -l en_US rpmb -> rpm, rpm b') mmc-utils.src: E: spelling-error ('stdout', '%description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out') mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('extcsd', '%description -l en_US extcsd -> extend') mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('eMMC', '%description -l en_US eMMC -> emcee') mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('writeprotect', '%description -l en_US writeprotect -> write protect, write-protect, protectorate') mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('rpmb', '%description -l en_US rpmb -> rpm, rpm b') mmc-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('stdout', '%description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out') 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 1 warnings, 18 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mmc-utils-debuginfo-0~20240305gite1281d4-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpefyvcm71')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "mmc-utils-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "mmc-utils-debuginfo". ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 3 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "mmc-utils". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/mmc/mmc-utils.git/snapshot/mmc-utils-e1281d4de9166b7254ba30bb58f9191fc2c9e7fb.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b44cab25863381f1744801338649811a05c6030f4dafcb9123ccbdc1f847e311 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b44cab25863381f1744801338649811a05c6030f4dafcb9123ccbdc1f847e311 Requires -------- mmc-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) mmc-utils-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mmc-utils-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mmc-utils: bundled(hmac) mmc-utils mmc-utils(x86-64) mmc-utils-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) mmc-utils-debuginfo mmc-utils-debuginfo(x86-64) mmc-utils-debugsource: mmc-utils-debugsource mmc-utils-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name mmc-utils --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, PHP, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks for the review! Please assign yourself to the bug, otherwise I can't request a new repo: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/61169 .
Whoops, sorry. Done!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mmc-utils
FEDORA-2024-a8968098b4 (mmc-utils-0~20240305gite1281d4-2.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a8968098b4
FEDORA-2024-a8968098b4 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-a8968098b4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a8968098b4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-a8968098b4 (mmc-utils-0~20240305gite1281d4-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.