Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sshil/whichfont/fedora-37-x86_64/05927532-whichfont/whichfont.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sshil/whichfont/fedora-37-x86_64/05927532-whichfont/whichfont-1.0.5-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Querying fontconfig for certain code point. Use the fc-match :charset=... command with UTF-8 character codes and unicode both. Fedora Account System Username:sshil
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5931564 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2208258-whichfont/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05931564-whichfont/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 Issues: 1) Fix rpmlint error whichfont.src: E: description-line-too-long use the fc-match :charset=... command with UTF-8 character codes and unicode both. 2) I am not sure why "Requires: pkgconfig" is needed by this package. You should remove it from SPEC file. ===== 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]: 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: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/whichfont/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 [-]: 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. [-]: 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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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: whichfont-1.0.5-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm whichfont-debuginfo-1.0.5-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm whichfont-debugsource-1.0.5-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm whichfont-1.0.5-1.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/tmp0hh8cemo')] checks: 31, packages: 4 whichfont.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary whichfont whichfont.src: E: description-line-too-long use the fc-match :charset=... command with UTF-8 character codes and unicode both. whichfont.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long use the fc-match :charset=... command with UTF-8 character codes and unicode both. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: whichfont-debuginfo-1.0.5-1.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/tmpmx76b3tv')] 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 whichfont.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary whichfont whichfont.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long use the fc-match :charset=... command with UTF-8 character codes and unicode both. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sudipshil9862/whichfont/archive/refs/tags/1.0.5.tar.gz#/whichfont-1.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 109222986507320a4b304c2af08096c1fa5ddc193595bb690793e98d2048066e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 109222986507320a4b304c2af08096c1fa5ddc193595bb690793e98d2048066e Requires -------- whichfont (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig rtld(GNU_HASH) whichfont-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): whichfont-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- whichfont: whichfont whichfont(x86-64) whichfont-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) whichfont-debuginfo whichfont-debuginfo(x86-64) whichfont-debugsource: whichfont-debugsource whichfont-debugsource(x86-64) 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 whichfont --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Java, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sshil/whichfont/fedora-37-x86_64/05943347-whichfont/whichfont.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sshil/whichfont/fedora-37-x86_64/05943347-whichfont/whichfont-1.0.5-2.fc37.src.rpm
Created attachment 1966308 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5931564 to 5943353
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5943353 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2208258-whichfont/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05943353-whichfont/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.
Thanks for the update. New package looks good. APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/whichfont
FEDORA-2023-6451e10d9a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6451e10d9a
FEDORA-2023-cb7c3d5efa has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cb7c3d5efa
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-0e184460ae has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-0e184460ae
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-e5a5b7956d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-e5a5b7956d
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-e5a5b7956d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-e5a5b7956d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-cb7c3d5efa 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-cb7c3d5efa \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cb7c3d5efa See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-0e184460ae has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-0e184460ae See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-6451e10d9a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-6451e10d9a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6451e10d9a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-6451e10d9a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-e5a5b7956d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-0e184460ae has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-cb7c3d5efa has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.