Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/lsb_release.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/lsb_release-3.2-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Linux Standard Base Release Tools, ported to use os-release(5). Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6565551 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246225-lsb_release/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06565551-lsb_release/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.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 1995486 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6565551 to 6565708
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6565708 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246225-lsb_release/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06565708-lsb_release/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.
The /usr/bin/lsb_release path in this package conflicts with the same path in redhat-lsb-core. Implicit conflicts are not allowed. I don't expect either upstream will rename as the third party tools often require the lsb_release command specifically, so you need to add an explicit `Conflicts: redhat-lsb-core` line. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_acceptable_uses_of_conflicts ================================================================================ Add a comment above the patch to describe the upstream status. This could be a link to an upstream bug report, pull request, or commit. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/ ================================================================================ Optionally, you can use %make_build and %make_install instead of calling make directly. The parallel aspect isn't strictly required since this is a noarch package, but it is still best practice in case any other default flags are ever added to %make_build. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_why_the_makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used ================================================================================ Optionally, you can use Source and Patch (unnumbered), which works all the back to EL9. ================================================================================ 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. [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. [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 591 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [x]: 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. [-]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
(In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #5) > The /usr/bin/lsb_release path in this package conflicts with the same path > in redhat-lsb-core. Implicit conflicts are not allowed. I don't expect > either upstream will rename as the third party tools often require the > lsb_release command specifically, so you need to add an explicit `Conflicts: > redhat-lsb-core` line. > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/ > #_acceptable_uses_of_conflicts > Addressed. > ============================================================================= > === > > Add a comment above the patch to describe the upstream status. This could > be a link to an upstream bug report, pull request, or commit. > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > PatchUpstreamStatus/ > Addressed. > ============================================================================= > === > > Optionally, you can use %make_build and %make_install instead of calling > make directly. The parallel aspect isn't strictly required since this is a > noarch package, but it is still best practice in case any other default > flags are ever added to %make_build. > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_why_the_makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used > > ============================================================================= > === > > Optionally, you can use Source and Patch (unnumbered), which works all the > back to EL9. > > ============================================================================= > === > Skipping these.
I updated them in place, but just FYI: Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/lsb_release.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/lsb_release-3.2-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1995498 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6565708 to 6565890
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6565890 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246225-lsb_release/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06565890-lsb_release/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.
With those fixes, the package is approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lsb_release
FEDORA-2023-0b1cbed843 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0b1cbed843
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-cc99ffee93 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-cc99ffee93
FEDORA-2023-729ba789a5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-729ba789a5
FEDORA-2023-0b1cbed843 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-2023-0b1cbed843 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0b1cbed843 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-cc99ffee93 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-cc99ffee93 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-729ba789a5 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-729ba789a5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-729ba789a5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-ad383a2dae 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-ad383a2dae \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ad383a2dae See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-cc99ffee93 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-ad383a2dae has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-0b1cbed843 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-729ba789a5 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.