Bug 2262593 - Review Request: furnace - a multi-system chiptune tracker compatible with DefleMask modules
Summary: Review Request: furnace - a multi-system chiptune tracker compatible with Def...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Beck Liu
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-02-04 05:46 UTC by Felix Wang
Modified: 2024-02-05 16:48 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-02-05 16:48:24 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
shattuckite: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6985696 to 6986281 (1.66 KB, patch)
2024-02-05 11:39 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Felix Wang 2024-02-04 05:46:47 UTC
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/furnace.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/furnace-0.6.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
Description: a multi-system chiptune tracker compatible with DefleMask modules
Fedora Account System Username: topazus

Comment 1 Beck Liu 2024-02-04 08:39:43 UTC
[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2024-02-05 03:31:24 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6985689
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2262593-furnace/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06985689-furnace/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file exo-license.txt is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND Zlib AND Unlicense AND GPL-2.1-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND MIT'.
  Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
- Documentation size is 7351624 bytes in 288 files. 
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation

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.

Comment 3 Fedora Review Service 2024-02-05 03:35:47 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6985696
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2262593-furnace/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06985696-furnace/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file exo-license.txt is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND Zlib AND Unlicense AND GPL-2.1-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND MIT'.
  Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
- Documentation size is 7351624 bytes in 288 files. 
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation

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.

Comment 4 Beck Liu 2024-02-05 10:28:19 UTC
> - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND Zlib AND Unlicense AND GPL-2.1-or-later > AND GPL-2.0-only AND MIT'.
>   Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1

It should be GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND Zlib AND Unlicense AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND MIT.

> - Documentation size is 7351624 bytes in 288 files. 
>   Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation

Consider creating -doc subpackage that stores the documentation with large size.

> [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners:
>      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/1024x1024,
>      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/1024x1024/apps

Consider remove the /usr/share/icons/hicolor/1024x1024 directory.

Comment 6 Fedora Review Service 2024-02-05 11:39:25 UTC
Created attachment 2015196 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6985696 to 6986281

Comment 7 Fedora Review Service 2024-02-05 11:39:27 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6986281
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2262593-furnace/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06986281-furnace/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file exo-license.txt is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

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.

Comment 8 Beck Liu 2024-02-05 12:35:00 UTC
Approved.

Comment 10 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-02-05 15:48:58 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/furnace

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2024-02-05 16:47:04 UTC
FEDORA-2024-eddf1f84e7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-eddf1f84e7

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2024-02-05 16:48:24 UTC
FEDORA-2024-eddf1f84e7 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.