Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06194293-libspelling/libspelling.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06194293-libspelling/libspelling-0.1.0~%5E1.6518502-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: A spellcheck library for GTK 4. This library is heavily based upon GNOME Text Editor and GNOME Builder's spellcheck implementation. Fedora Account System Username: carlwgeorge
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6194944 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2224499-libspelling/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06194944-libspelling/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.
Taking this and using it to test the upcoming fedora-review 0.10.0 Quick question -- the pre-release version string is really weird, do you intend to use both ~ (sorts lower) and ^ (sorts higher)?
Hey Michel, thanks for taking the review. Yes, the version string is intentional. Upstream hasn't created any tags, but their meson.build file says 0.1.0. The syntax for snapshots is ^<number>.<revision>, but I also want this snapshot to sort earlier than 0.1.0 in case that is selected for the first upstream tag. I believe combining the characters like this is the correct way to handle this. I've done things like this in a few other packages and it has worked well. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_handling_non_sorting_versions_with_tilde_dot_and_caret
Hi Carl. Ah, thanks. Yeah... that seems to be how the versioning guidelines read, so I guess I've just done it wrong for one package, woops. I think I realized why too: michel in public-inbox on rawhide ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:38] ❯ rpmdev-vercmp 2.0.0~20230714git590023f-1 2.0.0~^20230714git590023f-1 2.0.0~20230714git590023f-1 > 2.0.0~^20230714git590023f-1 michel in public-inbox on rawhide ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:38] ❯ rpmdev-vercmp 2.0.0~alpha1-1 2.0.0~^20230714git590023f-1 2.0.0~alpha1-1 > 2.0.0~^20230714git590023f-1 (so in case upstream cuts a proper pre-release, ^ sorts lower than alpha, beta, etc.). oh well, that means I can't really fix that package's versioning, but eh it is only a stopgap to fix a Rawhide build)
Per licensecheck.txt (verified by looking at the headers) there are two files that are GPL-3.0-or-later so you need to update the license field (and list the filepaths) GNU General Public License v3.0 or later ---------------------------------------- libspelling-65185023db95ec464970aeaeab766fe3ba26ae7d/lib/egg-action-group.h libspelling-65185023db95ec464970aeaeab766fe3ba26ae7d/testsuite/test-cursor.c Everything else looks fine 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]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [!]: 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 Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2224499-libspelling/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/vala(gcr3-devel, gsound-devel, libgnome-games-support-devel, appstream-devel, libpanel- devel, libgda-devel, ibus-devel, gmime30-devel, zeitgeist-devel, geoclue2-devel, gssdp-devel, template-glib-devel, libdmapsharing- devel, libgexiv2-devel, gnome-calculator-devel, folks-devel, gtksourceview4-devel, gupnp-devel, grilo-devel, libgda-ui-devel, librsvg2-devel, pulseaudio-libs-devel, rhythmbox-devel, tracker-devel, accountsservice-devel, gmime-devel, libjcat-devel, gegl04-devel, libmanette-devel, libtranslit-devel, bamf-devel, libgit2-glib-devel, libgee06-devel, libosinfo-devel, gupnp-dlna-devel, jsonrpc-glib-devel, libshumate-devel, libhandy-devel, libgda5-devel, libdazzle-devel, gupnp-av-devel, gtksourceview3-devel, libdex-devel, libsoup-devel, gnome-online-accounts-devel, vte291-devel, libgweather4-devel, libgda5-ui-devel, babl-devel, libsoup3-devel, libsecret-devel, libdmapsharing4-devel, caribou-devel, gnome-autoar-devel, gedit-devel, libgee-devel, libgnome-games-support1-devel, gitg-devel, gplugin-vala, libcanberra-devel, rygel-devel, gcr-devel, libgdata-devel, budgie- desktop-devel, gtksourceview5-devel, vala, dconf-devel, gspell-devel, libgnome-keyring-devel), /usr/share/vala/vapi(gcr3-devel, gsound- devel, libgnome-games-support-devel, appstream-devel, libpanel-devel, libgda-devel, ibus-devel, gmime30-devel, zeitgeist-devel, geoclue2-devel, libproxy-devel, gssdp-devel, template-glib-devel, libdmapsharing-devel, libgexiv2-devel, gnome-calculator-devel, folks- devel, gtksourceview4-devel, gupnp-devel, grilo-devel, libgda-ui- devel, librsvg2-devel, pulseaudio-libs-devel, rhythmbox-devel, tracker-devel, accountsservice-devel, gmime-devel, libjcat-devel, gegl04-devel, libmanette-devel, libtranslit-devel, bamf-devel, libgit2-glib-devel, libgee06-devel, libosinfo-devel, gupnp-dlna-devel, jsonrpc-glib-devel, libshumate-devel, libhandy-devel, libgda5-devel, libzeitgeist-devel, libdazzle-devel, gupnp-av-devel, gtksourceview3-devel, libdex-devel, libsoup-devel, gnome-online- accounts-devel, vte291-devel, libgweather4-devel, libgda5-ui-devel, babl-devel, libsoup3-devel, libsecret-devel, libdmapsharing4-devel, fwupd-devel, caribou-devel, gnome-autoar-devel, gedit-devel, libgee- devel, libgnome-games-support1-devel, gitg-devel, gplugin-vala, libcanberra-devel, rygel-devel, gcr-devel, libgdata-devel, budgie- desktop-devel, gtksourceview5-devel, vala, dconf-devel, gspell-devel, libgnome-keyring-devel) [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: 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]: 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 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 0 bytes in 0 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: libspelling-0.1.0~^1.6518502-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm libspelling-devel-0.1.0~^1.6518502-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm libspelling-debuginfo-0.1.0~^1.6518502-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm libspelling-debugsource-0.1.0~^1.6518502-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm libspelling-0.1.0~^1.6518502-1.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/tmpf71hf4jp')] checks: 31, packages: 5 ======================= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ======================= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libspelling-debuginfo-0.1.0~^1.6518502-1.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/tmpg2xvx3_g')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ======================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ======================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 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: 31, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.gnome.org/chergert/libspelling/-/archive/65185023db95ec464970aeaeab766fe3ba26ae7d/libspelling-6518502.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e9fed06e37f85846dc1560f317d2469e602a8e8097170721e0719f1912d5d6c0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e9fed06e37f85846dc1560f317d2469e602a8e8097170721e0719f1912d5d6c0 Requires -------- libspelling (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libenchant-2.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) libgtksourceview-5.so.0()(64bit) libicuuc.so.73()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libspelling-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libspelling(x86-64) libspelling-1.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig(gio-2.0) pkgconfig(gtk4) pkgconfig(gtksourceview-5) libspelling-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libspelling-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libspelling: libspelling libspelling(x86-64) libspelling-1.so.1()(64bit) libspelling-devel: libspelling-devel libspelling-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libspelling-1) libspelling-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libspelling-1.so.1.0.0-0.1.0~^1.6518502-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libspelling-debuginfo libspelling-debuginfo(x86-64) libspelling-debugsource: libspelling-debugsource libspelling-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2224499 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, Python, Haskell, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks for catching that. testsuite/test-cursor.c isn't compiled into the binaries shipped in the package [0], so I'll ignore it, but I added a comment about the other one and adjusted the License field. # main source is LGPL-2.1-or-later # lib/egg-action-group.h is GPL-3.0-or-later License: LGPL-2.1-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_basic_policy
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06215076-libspelling/libspelling.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06215076-libspelling/libspelling-0.1.0~%5E1.6518502-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1980193 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6194944 to 6215098
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6215098 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2224499-libspelling/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06215098-libspelling/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.
Everything else looks fine, APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libspelling
FEDORA-2023-46835e0e71 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-46835e0e71
FEDORA-2023-46835e0e71 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.