Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mattkae/miracle-wm/master/rpm/miracle-wm.spec SRPM URL: https://matthewkosarek.xyz/download/miracle-wm-0.1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: miracle-wm is a Wayland compositor based on Mir. It features a tiling window manager at its core, very much in the style of i3 and sway. The intention is to build a compositor that is flashier and more feature-rich than either of those compositors, like swayfx. Fedora Account System Username: mattkae
Taking this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/ngompa/2272744-miracle-wm/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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. [!]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 161 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2272744-miracle-wm/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [x]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/ngompa/2272744-miracle-wm/srpm- unpacked/miracle-wm.spec See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: miracle-wm-0.1.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm miracle-wm-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm miracle-wm-debugsource-0.1.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm miracle-wm-0.1.0-1.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/tmp_tb3niwx')] checks: 32, packages: 4 miracle-wm.src: E: spelling-error ('swayfx', '%description -l en_US swayfx -> sway') miracle-wm.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('swayfx', '%description -l en_US swayfx -> sway') miracle-wm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary miracle-wm miracle-wm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary miracle-wm-sensible-terminal miracle-wm.x86_64: W: no-documentation miracle-wm.src: W: inconsistent-file-extension miracle-wm-0.1.0.tar.gz ==================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 16 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s ===================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: miracle-wm-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.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/tmpwzd4lrzs')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ===================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 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: 3 miracle-wm.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('swayfx', '%description -l en_US swayfx -> sway') miracle-wm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary miracle-wm miracle-wm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary miracle-wm-sensible-terminal miracle-wm.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 13 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mattkae/miracle-wm/archive/v0.1.0/miracle-wm-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7b4e92eea319f0d50ff20f25c71eb35d62fb9fb641e538c69a81e6398581e8e6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e6aab16df9c44223677b37e5ca34743eb2880a862da5b291c99f4a3c7ca3bfef diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- miracle-wm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libevdev.so.2()(64bit) libevdev.so.2(LIBEVDEV_1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libmiral.so.6()(64bit) libmiral.so.6(MIRAL_4.0)(64bit) libmiral.so.6(MIRAL_4.1)(64bit) libmircommon.so.9()(64bit) libmircommon.so.9(MIR_COMMON_2.8)(64bit) libmircore.so.2()(64bit) libmircore.so.2(MIR_CORE_2.9)(64bit) libnotify.so.4()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libyaml-cpp.so.0.7()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) miracle-wm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): miracle-wm-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- miracle-wm: miracle-wm miracle-wm(x86-64) miracle-wm-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) miracle-wm-debuginfo miracle-wm-debuginfo(x86-64) miracle-wm-debugsource: miracle-wm-debugsource miracle-wm-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2272744 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, R, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > > Issues: > ======= > - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ This is fedora-review not recognizing "g++" and only knowing the "real name" of "gcc-c++". Meh. > - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- > file-validate if there is such a file. This can be fixed by adding "BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils" and adding after the %install section the following: %check desktop-file-validate %{_datarootdir}/wayland-sessions/miracle-wm.desktop > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /home/ngompa/2272744-miracle-wm/diff.txt > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > Uhh, I'm not sure what's going on here. I guess you didn't use a source tarball generated by GitHub here. > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. > Note: Sources not installed > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [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. > [!]: 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. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public > License, Version 3". 161 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2272744-miracle-wm/licensecheck.txt You're missing some kind of license header on the Miracle source files, which is making it difficult to identify what license this stuff is in. Having the standard LGPL-3.0-or-later header on the source files would fix this. > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Add "%license LICENSE" to the %files list. > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > architectures. > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Do we have tests we can run? I see a tests folder...
Adding these fixes now. Will open up a pull request for you to confirm.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mattkae/miracle-wm/master/rpm/miracle-wm.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/mattkae/miracle-wm/actions/runs/8789320141/artifacts/1436795949
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mattkae/miracle-wm/master/rpm/miracle-wm.spec SRPM URL: https://matthewkosarek.xyz/download/miracle-wm-0.2.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Local test build reveals this: error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/bin/miracle-wm-unsnap This file probably just needs to be deleted during packaging. Add the following after "%cmake_install": rm -v %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/miracle-wm-unsnap (Or fix the CMake so it doesn't install this file unless it's told this is a snap build)
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/ngompa/2272744-miracle-wm/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 33 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2272744-miracle-wm/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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: 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 does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [x]: 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. [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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/ngompa/2272744-miracle-wm/srpm- unpacked/miracle-wm.spec See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: miracle-wm-0.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm miracle-wm-debuginfo-0.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm miracle-wm-debugsource-0.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm miracle-wm-0.2.0-1.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/tmp8vwdk8nz')] checks: 32, packages: 4 miracle-wm.src: E: spelling-error ('swayfx', '%description -l en_US swayfx -> sway') miracle-wm.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('swayfx', '%description -l en_US swayfx -> sway') miracle-wm.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/miracle-wm/LICENSE miracle-wm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary miracle-wm miracle-wm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary miracle-wm-sensible-terminal miracle-wm.x86_64: W: no-documentation miracle-wm.src: W: inconsistent-file-extension miracle-wm-0.2.0.tar.gz ==================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 16 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.4 s ===================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: miracle-wm-debuginfo-0.2.0-1.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/tmpqhk_krrn')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ===================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 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: 3 miracle-wm.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('swayfx', '%description -l en_US swayfx -> sway') miracle-wm.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/miracle-wm/LICENSE miracle-wm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary miracle-wm miracle-wm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary miracle-wm-sensible-terminal miracle-wm.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 13 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mattkae/miracle-wm/archive/v0.2.0/miracle-wm-0.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5525c9257c0de2896ac0abce261cdef46a28f856c9ffefa282bde08d241e3833 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 04d9f046e1d59e26e9cfa4a39757080b6eb1b0dc0fe99ecd3708affb73d8c25c diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- miracle-wm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libevdev.so.2()(64bit) libevdev.so.2(LIBEVDEV_1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libmiral.so.6()(64bit) libmiral.so.6(MIRAL_4.0)(64bit) libmiral.so.6(MIRAL_4.1)(64bit) libmircommon.so.9()(64bit) libmircommon.so.9(MIR_COMMON_2.8)(64bit) libmircore.so.2()(64bit) libmircore.so.2(MIR_CORE_2.9)(64bit) libnotify.so.4()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libyaml-cpp.so.0.7()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) miracle-wm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): miracle-wm-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- miracle-wm: miracle-wm miracle-wm(x86-64) miracle-wm-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) miracle-wm-debuginfo miracle-wm-debuginfo(x86-64) miracle-wm-debugsource: miracle-wm-debugsource miracle-wm-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2272744 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Python, PHP, R, Java, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Spec URL: https://matthewkosarek.xyz/download/miracle-wm.spec SRPM URL: https://matthewkosarek.xyz/download/miracle-wm-0.2.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
Review notes: * Package follows Fedora Packaging Guidelines * Package builds and installs * Package licensing is correctly handled and recorded * No serious issues from rpmlint PACKAGE APPROVED.
I've sponsored you to become a Fedora packager. Welcome to Fedora and I hope you enjoy your time here! :)
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/miracle-wm
FEDORA-2024-39fac6e2b6 (miracle-wm-0.2.1-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-39fac6e2b6
FEDORA-2024-39fac6e2b6 (mir-2.16.4-1.fc40 and miracle-wm-0.2.1-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.