Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/fedtex/fedtex.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/fedtex/fedtex-0.1-2.fc39.src.rpm Description: Simple TeX dependency installer for Fedora Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=104305743
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6237305 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2228841-fedtex/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06237305-fedtex/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.
Updated to 0.2 with a couple of fixes: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/fedtex/fedtex.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/fedtex/fedtex-0.2-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1981469 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6237305 to 6237388
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6237388 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2228841-fedtex/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06237388-fedtex/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.
APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2228841-fedtex/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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: 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: [-]: 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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) OK: differences are due to rpmautospec only. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: fedtex-0.2-1.fc39.noarch.rpm fedtex-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/tmpyxjk7ywj')] checks: 31, packages: 2 fedtex.src: W: strange-permission fedtex.spec 600 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://releases.pagure.org/fedtex/fedtex-0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9b45be3dbb7b2882a591d96f6733dd8196b1932f05ef273a18867b6dfec7d167 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9b45be3dbb7b2882a591d96f6733dd8196b1932f05ef273a18867b6dfec7d167 Requires -------- fedtex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash coreutils grep sed Provides -------- fedtex: fedtex Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/Downloads/review/2228841-fedtex/srpm/fedtex.spec 2023-08-03 10:43:57.936459796 -0400 +++ /home/ben/Downloads/review/2228841-fedtex/srpm-unpacked/fedtex.spec 2023-08-02 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: fedtex Version: 0.2 @@ -38,3 +48,10 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Thu Aug 03 2023 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 0.2-1 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Thu Aug 03 2023 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 0.1-2 +- feat: ready for review + +* Thu Aug 03 2023 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 0.1-1 +- feat: init Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2228841 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Python, R, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
If you have a little time for a simple (but not quite *this* simple) low-priority review that has been lingering for a while, would you mind taking a look at bug 2090707?
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedtex
FEDORA-2023-9d4bdc5a05 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9d4bdc5a05
FEDORA-2023-9d4bdc5a05 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-b29edadb3f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b29edadb3f
FEDORA-2023-3122aede66 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3122aede66
FEDORA-2023-b29edadb3f 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-b29edadb3f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b29edadb3f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-3122aede66 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-2023-3122aede66 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3122aede66 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-b29edadb3f has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-3122aede66 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.