spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/bwbasic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07212682-bwbasic/bwbasic.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/bwbasic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07212682-bwbasic/bwbasic-3.20g-1.fc41.src.rpm description: The Bywater BASIC Interpreter (bwBASIC) implements a large superset of the ANSI Standard for Minimal BASIC (X3.60-1978), a significant subset of the ANSI Standard for Full BASIC (X3.113-1987), and many classic BASIC dialects in C. bwBASIC seeks to be as portable as possible. fas: fed500 Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=115425551 Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7212694 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2271504-bwbasic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07212694-bwbasic/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.
BASIC! Wow. That was my first programming language, about 40 years ago, on a Commodore 64. Man, I'm old. I will take this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== - Fedora LDFLAGS are not used at link time. This is the reason for the position-independent-executable-suggested rpmlint warnings. - Consider adding a VCS tag for the github repo; i.e., VCS: https://github.com/kenmartin-unix/Bwbasic - Does the yeolpishack.net URL really work for you? I have tried visiting it a couple of times now, and my browser reporst that the connection timed out. - Would it be possible to run something in BAS-EXAMPLES in %check, just to verify that the system works at all? - Note the incorrect-fsf-address rpmlint warning. Please tell upstream that their copy of the GPL 2.0 license text is very old, since the FSF moved from Mass Ave in ... what year was that? Somewhere between 15 and 20 years ago, I think. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: 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", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 150 files have unknown license. [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. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. CFLAGS are correct, but LDFLAGS are not used. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 17744 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]: 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]: 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]: 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: bwbasic-3.20g-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm bwbasic-doc-3.20g-1.fc41.noarch.rpm bwbasic-debuginfo-3.20g-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm bwbasic-debugsource-3.20g-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm bwbasic-3.20g-1.fc41.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/tmpgt0fanv7')] checks: 32, packages: 5 bwbasic.src: E: spelling-error ('Bywater', 'Summary(en_US) Bywater -> By water, By-water, Waterway') bwbasic.src: E: spelling-error ('superset', '%description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede') bwbasic.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Bywater', 'Summary(en_US) Bywater -> By water, By-water, Waterway') bwbasic.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('superset', '%description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede') bwbasic.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/bwbasic bwbasic.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/renum bwbasic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bwbasic bwbasic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary renum bwbasic.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bwbasic/COPYING bwbasic-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bwbasic-doc/COPYING bwbasic-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/bwbasic/BAS-EXAMPLES/curve2.bas /usr/share/doc/bwbasic/BAS-EXAMPLES/curve.bas bwbasic-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/bwbasic/BAS-EXAMPLES/guess2.bas /usr/share/doc/bwbasic/BAS-EXAMPLES/guess.bas ========== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 6 warnings, 31 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.5 s =========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: bwbasic-debuginfo-3.20g-1.fc41.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/tmp2aylb0c1')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 4 bwbasic.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/renum /lib64/libm.so.6 bwbasic.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Bywater', 'Summary(en_US) Bywater -> By water, By-water, Waterway') bwbasic.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('superset', '%description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede') bwbasic.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/bwbasic bwbasic.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/renum bwbasic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bwbasic bwbasic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary renum bwbasic.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bwbasic/COPYING bwbasic-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bwbasic-doc/COPYING bwbasic-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/bwbasic/BAS-EXAMPLES/curve2.bas /usr/share/doc/bwbasic/BAS-EXAMPLES/curve.bas bwbasic-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/bwbasic/BAS-EXAMPLES/guess2.bas /usr/share/doc/bwbasic/BAS-EXAMPLES/guess.bas 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 7 warnings, 27 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://yeolpishack.net/repos/ChipMaster/bwBASIC/archive/v3.20g.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 56309a21f21e737b604f03e7d760f5df953b4a14663b0a7051f8a02bce7cc86a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 56309a21f21e737b604f03e7d760f5df953b4a14663b0a7051f8a02bce7cc86a Requires -------- bwbasic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) bwbasic-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bwbasic-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bwbasic-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- bwbasic: bwbasic bwbasic(x86-64) bwbasic-doc: bwbasic-doc bwbasic-debuginfo: bwbasic-debuginfo bwbasic-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) bwbasic-debugsource: bwbasic-debugsource bwbasic-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2271504 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, R, Ruby, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, Python, fonts, Ocaml, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
- Fedora LDFLAGS are not used at link time. This is the reason for the position-independent-executable-suggested rpmlint warnings. Fixed in updated spec - Consider adding a VCS tag for the github repo; i.e., VCS: https://github.com/kenmartin-unix/Bwbasic This repo is no longer actively used for development. - Does the yeolpishack.net URL really work for you? I have tried visiting it a couple of times now, and my browser reporst that the connection timed out. Yes. - Would it be possible to run something in BAS-EXAMPLES in %check, just to verify that the system works at all? Done. - Note the incorrect-fsf-address rpmlint warning. Please tell upstream that their copy of the GPL 2.0 license text is very old, since the FSF moved from Mass Ave in ... what year was that? Somewhere between 15 and 20 years ago, I think. Notified upstream by email. It has been recently updated: https://yeolpishack.net/repos/ChipMaster/bwBASIC/src/branch/master/COPYING spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/bwbasic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07491105-bwbasic/bwbasic.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/bwbasic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07491105-bwbasic/bwbasic-3.20g-1.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2035165 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7212694 to 7492442
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7492442 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2271504-bwbasic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07492442-bwbasic/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.
I apologize for being so slow with this. Everything looks fine now. And for some reason, I can get to the URL today with no problem. Whatever was going wrong before must have been a transient issue. This package is APPROVED.
Thanks. Sorry for delay in responding, could you re-approve the package and reset the fedora-review + again.
Okay, setting fedora-review back to ?
This package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bwbasic
FEDORA-2024-2540a8739d (bwbasic-3.20g-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2540a8739d
FEDORA-2024-dd7dab742a (bwbasic-3.20g-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dd7dab742a
FEDORA-2024-dd7dab742a has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-dd7dab742a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dd7dab742a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-2540a8739d has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-2540a8739d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2540a8739d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-dd7dab742a (bwbasic-3.20g-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-2540a8739d (bwbasic-3.20g-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.