Spec URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind.spec SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind-04.02.07-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Remind is a sophisticated calendar and alarm program. It includes the following features: * A sophisticated scripting language * Plain-text, PDF, PostScript and HTML output * Timed reminders and pop-up alarms Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108088571
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6564594 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246133-remind/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06564594-remind/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.
Fedora-review warnings: [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/remind/holidays, /usr/share/remind/site, /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Remind, /usr/share/remind, /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Remind/PDF, /usr/share/remind/lang [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Remind, /usr/share/remind/lang, /usr/share/remind/holidays, /usr/share/remind, /usr/share/remind/site, /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Remind/PDF - 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. Note: License file COPYRIGHT is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Should use GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later Additional licenses: *No copyright* Public domain ---------------------------- remind-04.02.07/src/md5.c BSD 2-Clause License -------------------- remind-04.02.07/src/json.c remind-04.02.07/src/json.h
-> use autospec/autochangelog -> use SPDX for the Licence field -> This has not been used for decade: Group: Applications/Productivity Basically, don't reuse the old spec, it is full of archaism, start from scratch. We have some Public Domain to validate: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/398 md5.c was already approved. Here's my current work: Name: remind Version: 04.02.07 Release: %autorelease Summary: Sophisticated calendar and alarm program # GPL-2.0-only: main software # BSD-2-Clause: # - src/json.c # - src/json.h # GPL-2.0-only AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain: # - src/moon.c # LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain: # - src/md5.c License: GPL-2.0-only AND BSD-2-Clause AND (GPL-2.0-only AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain) AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain URL: https://dianne.skoll.ca/projects/remind/ Source: %url/download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Source: %url/download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz.sig Source: 685A5A5E511D30E2.gpg # stolen from Debian Patch: use-system-libjsonparser.diff BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: gnupg2 BuildRequires: make BuildRequires: perl(Cairo) BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) BuildRequires: perl(JSON::MaybeXS) BuildRequires: perl(Pango) BuildRequires: perl-generators BuildRequires: perl-interpreter BuildRequires: pkgconfig(json-parser) Recommends: remind-tools Recommends: remind-gui %description Remind is a sophisticated calendar and alarm program. It includes the following features: - A sophisticated scripting language and intelligent handling of exceptions and holidays - Plain-text, PDF, PostScript and HTML output - Timed reminders and pop-up alarms - A friendly graphical front-end for people who don't want to learn the scripting language - Facilities for both the Gregorian and Hebrew calendars - Support for 12 different languages %package tools Summary: Additional tools for remind # GPL-2.0-or-later: # - contrib/ical2rem.pl # - contrib/rem2ics-0.93/rem2ics.spec # - contrib/remind-conf-mode/remind-conf-mode.el # GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only: # - contrib/rem2ics-0.93/rem2ics # GPL-3.0-only: # - contrib/remind-conf-mode/gpl.txt License: GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-only %description tools Tools to convert the remind output to ps, pdf or html as well as example files. %package gui Summary: GUI for remind, a sophisticated calendar and alarm program License: GPL-2.0-only BuildArch: noarch Provides: tkremind = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} Requires: %{name} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} Requires: tcl Requires: tcllib Requires: tk >= 8.0 %description gui Tkremind provides a GUI which allows viewing a calendar and adding or editing reminders without learning the syntax of Remind. %prep %{gpgverify} --keyring='%{SOURCE2}' --signature='%{SOURCE1}' --data='%{SOURCE0}' %autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version} # Disable packlist and perllocal update sed -i 's|\$(PERL) Makefile.PL|\$(PERL) Makefile.PL NO_PACKLIST=1 NO_PERLLOCAL=1 OPTIMIZE="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"|g' rem2pdf/Makefile.top.in %build %configure %make_build %install %make_install %files %doc README docs/ %license COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT-AND-APPLE %{_bindir}/rem %{_bindir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/remind/ %{_mandir}/man1/rem.1* %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1* %files tools %doc www/ examples/ contrib/ %license COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT-AND-APPLE %{_bindir}/rem2html %{_bindir}/rem2pdf %{_bindir}/rem2ps %{perl_vendorlib}/* %{_mandir}/man1/rem2html.1* %{_mandir}/man1/rem2pdf.1* %{_mandir}/man1/rem2ps.1* %{_mandir}/man3/Remind::PDF.3pm* %{_mandir}/man3/Remind::PDF::Entry.3pm* %files gui %{_bindir}/tkremind %{_mandir}/man1/tkremind.1* %changelog %autochangelog Scratch: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108096973 COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/eclipseo/remind/builds/ Fedora-Review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/remind/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06564953-remind/fedora-review/review.txt Note the division of packages is based on Debian's one. I reused the -giu subpackages but added a tkremind Provides to match Debian's.
SPEC: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/remind.spec SRPM: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/remind-04.02.07-1.fc39.src.rpm
Hi, Thank you for the review and for the updated base to use. I had not had a chance to take another pass at updating it yet, so your effort is much appreciated -- especially around the license part. I was halfway through looking up what to do with moon.c before I got pulled off to other tasks. It looks like the ticket was already approved, so, we're good on that front. I will update the review with the new spec, rebased on your work.
Spec URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind.spec SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind-04.02.07-1.fc38.src.rpm update to eclipseo's work on the spec
Created attachment 1995440 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6564594 to 6565170
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6565170 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246133-remind/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06565170-remind/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.
> especially around the license part I have used scancode-toolkit, which I am currently packaging for Fedora. I'll update everyone on it.
Benson, you wanna finalise the review? Thanks.
Ok, can finish the review. @zebob.m Would appreciate a second look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2189083
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_file_permissions - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/remind See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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. [ ]: 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 General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 99 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2246133-remind/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: %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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 244870 bytes in 39 files. [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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 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 Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. ===== 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in remind- tools , remind-gui [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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: remind-04.02.07-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-tools-04.02.07-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-gui-04.02.07-1.fc40.noarch.rpm remind-debuginfo-04.02.07-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-debugsource-04.02.07-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-04.02.07-1.fc40.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/tmpia3wla01')] checks: 31, packages: 6 remind-tools.aarch64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/rem2pdf 555 remind.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/remind/COPYRIGHT remind-tools.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/remind-tools/contrib/remind-conf-mode/remind-conf-mode.el remind-tools.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/remind-tools/COPYRIGHT remind-gui.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcllib 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings, 5 badness; has taken 1.1 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: remind-debuginfo-04.02.07-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-tools-debuginfo-04.02.07-1.fc40.aarch64.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/tmpyoyv02ne')] checks: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 6 remind-tools.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/rem2ps /lib64/libm.so.6 remind-tools.aarch64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/rem2pdf 555 remind.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/remind/COPYRIGHT remind-tools.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/remind-tools/contrib/remind-conf-mode/remind-conf-mode.el remind-tools.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/remind-tools/COPYRIGHT remind-gui.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcllib 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings, 5 badness; has taken 1.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://dianne.skoll.ca/projects/remind//download/remind-04.02.07.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bb69802e2f860c2f9d0fc26b81d1b93641e8426186d8f51abaaea416623257b4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bb69802e2f860c2f9d0fc26b81d1b93641e8426186d8f51abaaea416623257b4 https://dianne.skoll.ca/projects/remind//download/remind-04.02.07.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 03e12d90d99039ccf731be2aeea40634bea9c829d1bace27a8da2be3ce6db190 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 03e12d90d99039ccf731be2aeea40634bea9c829d1bace27a8da2be3ce6db190 Requires -------- remind (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) remind-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libjsonparser.so.1.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) perl(Cairo) perl(Encode) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(JSON::MaybeXS) perl(Pango) perl(Remind::PDF) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry) perl(base) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(warnings) perl-libs rtld(GNU_HASH) remind-gui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh remind tcl tcllib tk remind-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): remind-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- remind: remind remind(aarch-64) remind-tools: perl(Remind::PDF) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::UNKNOWN) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::color) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::html) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::htmlclass) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::moon) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::pango) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::postscript) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::psfile) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::shade) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::week) perl(Remind::PDF::Multi) remind-tools remind-tools(aarch-64) remind-gui: remind-gui tkremind remind-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) remind-debuginfo remind-debuginfo(aarch-64) remind-debugsource: remind-debugsource remind-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2246133 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Perl, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, Python, R, fonts, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Warning about name already existing is ok since want to unretire the package b) Software in %{_bindir} typically has permissions 755 c) Upstream may consider using the address at: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt d) Should the gui package have a desktop file? e) May want to replace Requires: %{name} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} with Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
May wish to check with legal on MICROSOFT-AND-APPLE probably not an issue though
FYI, the unmaintained repo has .desktop https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/remind/blob/7595418b852b8f0855d450fb9b42b863eb7ef667/f/tkremind.desktop
Spec URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind.spec SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind-04.02.08-1.fc39.src.rpm Thanks for the review! I've addressed the comments from the last upload.
Created attachment 2007839 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6565170 to 6873341
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6873341 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246133-remind/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06873341-remind/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://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind.spec SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind-04.02.08-1.fc39.src.rpm fix build failures
Created attachment 2007842 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6873341 to 6873373
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6873373 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246133-remind/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06873373-remind/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/remind Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/remind See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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: [ ]: 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 99 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2246133-remind/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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 245329 bytes in 39 files. [ ]: 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 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 Perl: [ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in remind- tools [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: Source 3 is not passed to gpgverify. [ ]: 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: [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: remind-04.02.08-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm remind-tools-04.02.08-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm remind-gui-04.02.08-1.fc40.noarch.rpm remind-debuginfo-04.02.08-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm remind-debugsource-04.02.08-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm remind-04.02.08-1.fc40.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/tmp0zxypk2d')] checks: 32, packages: 6 remind-tools.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ps', '%description -l en_US ps -> PS, pa, pd') remind-tools.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('html', '%description -l en_US html -> HTML') remind-tools.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 54% remind.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/remind/COPYRIGHT remind-tools.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/remind-tools/contrib/remind-conf-mode/remind-conf-mode.el remind-tools.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/remind-tools/COPYRIGHT remind-gui.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcllib 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings, 29 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 15.8 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: remind-debuginfo-04.02.08-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm remind-tools-debuginfo-04.02.08-1.fc40.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/tmplps44xe3')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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: 6 remind-tools.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/rem2ps /lib64/libm.so.6 remind-tools.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ps', '%description -l en_US ps -> PS, pa, pd') remind-tools.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('html', '%description -l en_US html -> HTML') remind-tools.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 54% remind-tools.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/remind-tools/contrib/remind-conf-mode/remind-conf-mode.el remind-tools.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/remind-tools/COPYRIGHT remind.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/remind/COPYRIGHT remind-gui.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcllib 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 2 warnings, 33 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 3.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://dianne.skoll.ca/projects/remind//download/remind-04.02.08.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 06bb03b27f9fdfde0794a199f0bcc27451b5c09268182929a993c1b4a5d2b03d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 06bb03b27f9fdfde0794a199f0bcc27451b5c09268182929a993c1b4a5d2b03d https://dianne.skoll.ca/projects/remind//download/remind-04.02.08.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 181b97e6c41b63ba17726f104e5597717ea5af082a411175513059df33d30a15 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 181b97e6c41b63ba17726f104e5597717ea5af082a411175513059df33d30a15 Requires -------- remind (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) remind-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl libc.so.6()(64bit) libjsonparser.so.1.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) perl(Cairo) perl(Encode) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(JSON::MaybeXS) perl(Pango) perl(Remind::PDF) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry) perl(base) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(warnings) perl-libs rtld(GNU_HASH) remind-gui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh remind(x86-64) tcl tcllib tk remind-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): remind-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- remind: remind remind(x86-64) remind-tools: perl(Remind::PDF) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::UNKNOWN) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::color) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::html) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::htmlclass) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::moon) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::pango) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::postscript) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::psfile) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::shade) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::week) perl(Remind::PDF::Multi) remind-tools remind-tools(x86-64) remind-gui: application() application(tkremind.desktop) remind-gui tkremind remind-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) remind-debuginfo remind-debuginfo(x86-64) remind-debugsource: remind-debugsource remind-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2246133 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++, Perl Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, fonts, Java, PHP, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Can some of the tests be run? See for example: https://git.skoll.ca/Skollsoft-Public/Remind/src/branch/master/tests/test-for-backends.rem b) Could the documentation in the tools subpackage be split into a noarch documentation only subpackage? c) Seems to be an issue when building on i686: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111534141 d) Do let upstream know about the incorrect FSF address
Update incoming. a) Can some of the tests be run? See for example: https://git.skoll.ca/Skollsoft-Public/Remind/src/branch/master/tests/test-for-backends.rem Yep - all except one of the test sets complete. Namely, it is the 'convert from localtime to utc' ones which appear to act incorrectly. I suspect that this is due to changes in how timezones are handled in Fedora, but I'm not entirely sure. For the meantime, I've disabled this test. ``` Remind: Acceptance test FAILED Examine the file test.out to see where it differs from the reference file test.cmp. Here are the first 200 lines of diff -u test.out test.cmp --- ../tests/test.out 2024-01-09 19:22:22.912648481 +0000 +++ ../tests/test.cmp 2023-12-14 21:08:46.000000000 +0000 @@ -11513,117 +11513,117 @@ # Test conversion between local time and UTC set a localtoutc('2022-01-01@12:00') -localtoutc(2022-01-01@12:00) => 2022-01-01@12:00 +localtoutc(2022-01-01@12:00) => 2022-01-01@17:00 set a localtoutc('2022-03-13@03:59') -localtoutc(2022-03-13@03:59) => 2022-03-13@03:59 +localtoutc(2022-03-13@03:59) => 2022-03-13@07:59 set a localtoutc('2022-03-13@04:00') -localtoutc(2022-03-13@04:00) => 2022-03-13@04:00 +localtoutc(2022-03-13@04:00) => 2022-03-13@08:00 set a localtoutc('2022-03-13@04:01') -localtoutc(2022-03-13@04:01) => 2022-03-13@04:01 +localtoutc(2022-03-13@04:01) => 2022-03-13@08:01 set a localtoutc('2022-06-01@12:00') -localtoutc(2022-06-01@12:00) => 2022-06-01@12:00 +localtoutc(2022-06-01@12:00) => 2022-06-01@16:00 set a localtoutc('2022-11-06@02:59') -localtoutc(2022-11-06@02:59) => 2022-11-06@02:59 +localtoutc(2022-11-06@02:59) => 2022-11-06@07:59 set a localtoutc('2022-11-06@03:00') -localtoutc(2022-11-06@03:00) => 2022-11-06@03:00 +localtoutc(2022-11-06@03:00) => 2022-11-06@08:00 set a localtoutc('2022-11-06@03:01') -localtoutc(2022-11-06@03:01) => 2022-11-06@03:01 +localtoutc(2022-11-06@03:01) => 2022-11-06@08:01 set a localtoutc('2022-12-01@12:00') -localtoutc(2022-12-01@12:00) => 2022-12-01@12:00 +localtoutc(2022-12-01@12:00) => 2022-12-01@17:00 ``` b) Could the documentation in the tools subpackage be split into a noarch documentation only subpackage? Certainly. Done. c) Seems to be an issue when building on i686: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111534141 This one is new to me--i'm not really sure what the solution is d) Do let upstream know about the incorrect FSF address I have started an email conversation with upstream about this.
Spec URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind.spec SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind-04.02.08-1.fc39.src.rpm Uncommitted changes
Created attachment 2007953 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6873373 to 6877097
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6877097 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246133-remind/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06877097-remind/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/remind Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Upon further review, it appears that the i686/x86 Requires difference is caused by the change to `%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}` as the Requires for tkremind vs `%{name} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}`. I'm not sure what the best course of action is here.
Spec URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind.spec SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind-04.02.08-1.fc39.src.rpm don't include %%{__isa} in Requires for tkremind
Created attachment 2007956 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6877097 to 6877123
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6877123 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246133-remind/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06877123-remind/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/remind Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind.spec SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind-04.02.08-1.fc39.src.rpm fix rpmlint errors by integrating upstream patch to change fsf address
Created attachment 2008177 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6877123 to 6881092
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6881092 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246133-remind/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06881092-remind/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/remind Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/remind See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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. [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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 99 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2246133-remind/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 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 2575 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. ===== 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in remind- gui , remind-tools [ ]: 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. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: Source 3 is not passed to gpgverify. [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]: 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: remind-04.02.08-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-doc-04.02.08-1.fc40.noarch.rpm remind-gui-04.02.08-1.fc40.noarch.rpm remind-tools-04.02.08-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-debuginfo-04.02.08-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-debugsource-04.02.08-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-04.02.08-1.fc40.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/tmpj0mkkhii')] checks: 32, packages: 7 remind-tools.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('ps', '%description -l en_US ps -> PS, pa, pd') remind-tools.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('html', '%description -l en_US html -> HTML') remind-gui.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcllib remind-doc.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 32 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 1.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: remind-debuginfo-04.02.08-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-tools-debuginfo-04.02.08-1.fc40.aarch64.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/tmpof192q43')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 15 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 7 remind-tools.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/rem2ps /lib64/libm.so.6 remind-tools.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('ps', '%description -l en_US ps -> PS, pa, pd') remind-tools.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('html', '%description -l en_US html -> HTML') remind-gui.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcllib remind-doc.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 36 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 1.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://dianne.skoll.ca/projects/remind//download/remind-04.02.08.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 06bb03b27f9fdfde0794a199f0bcc27451b5c09268182929a993c1b4a5d2b03d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 06bb03b27f9fdfde0794a199f0bcc27451b5c09268182929a993c1b4a5d2b03d https://dianne.skoll.ca/projects/remind//download/remind-04.02.08.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 181b97e6c41b63ba17726f104e5597717ea5af082a411175513059df33d30a15 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 181b97e6c41b63ba17726f104e5597717ea5af082a411175513059df33d30a15 Requires -------- remind (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) remind-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): remind-gui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh remind tcl tcllib tk remind-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libjsonparser.so.1.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) perl(Cairo) perl(Encode) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(JSON::MaybeXS) perl(Pango) perl(Remind::PDF) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry) perl(base) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(warnings) perl-libs rtld(GNU_HASH) remind-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): remind-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- remind: remind remind(aarch-64) remind-doc: remind-doc remind-gui: application() application(tkremind.desktop) remind-gui tkremind remind-tools: perl(Remind::PDF) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::UNKNOWN) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::color) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::html) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::htmlclass) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::moon) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::pango) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::postscript) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::psfile) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::shade) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::week) perl(Remind::PDF::Multi) remind-tools remind-tools(aarch-64) remind-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) remind-debuginfo remind-debuginfo(aarch-64) remind-debugsource: remind-debugsource remind-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2246133 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Perl, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Builds on Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112026484 b)Json parser is available in Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/json-parser/json-parser/ This is used by the patch use-system-libjsonparser.diff So BSD-2-Clause license can be removed. In the prep stage, it would be good to add rm src/json.h rm src/json.c see: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6924095 c) Should noto fonts be added as a suggested package? d) For architecture fix perhaps change: Provides: tkremind = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} Requires: %{name} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} to Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} see: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6924095 At present epochs are not used, and provides is automatically generated. e) Changes can be made on import. Approved. f) Review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256067 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253052 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258595 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258796 Would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.
FEDORA-2024-7e19331791 (remind-04.02.09-2.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-7e19331791
FEDORA-2024-7e19331791 (remind-04.02.09-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.