Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/multicharge.spec SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/multicharge-0.3.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jussilehtola Description: Electronegativity equilibration model for atomic partial charges.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7988969 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2310391-multicharge/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07988969-multicharge/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.
I'll review it as soon as package from bug 2310390 hits Rawhide.
(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #2) > I'll review it as soon as package from bug 2310390 hits Rawhide. mstore has now hit the f40, f41 and f42 buildroots.
Cannot build in Mock: ``` 387 RPM build errors: 388 File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/multicharge-0.3.0-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/man/man1/multicharge.1* ```
CAfter fixing a prefious issue it fails to build on i686: ``` config/meson.build:118:24: ERROR: Fortran shared or static library 'flexiblas64' not found A full log can be found at /builddir/build/BUILD/multicharge-0.3.0-build/multicharge-0.3.0/redhat-linux-build/meson-logs/meson-log.txt ```
Added missing BR: rubygem-asciidoctor and fixed link on ix86 https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/multicharge.spec https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/multicharge-0.3.0-2.fc40.src.rpm
Unfortunately we have to wait at least until ```mstore-0.3.0-1.fc42``` will be pushed to stable. There is no way to use buildroot overrides or Koji scratch-builds in fedora-review (despite of what outdated documentation says). Let's wait a bit.
Added the missing requires on the base package in devel https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/multicharge.spec https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/multicharge-0.3.0-3.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2045800 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7988969 to 7997587
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7997587 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2310391-multicharge/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07997587-multicharge/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.
I can't spot any issues so here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed 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++/ ^^^ false positive ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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 (ASL 2.0). [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package owns all directories that it creates. [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. [-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [x]: 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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [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 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 4127 bytes in 1 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). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (0.3.0). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream does not publish signatures). [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: multicharge-0.3.0-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm multicharge-devel-0.3.0-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm multicharge-debuginfo-0.3.0-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm multicharge-debugsource-0.3.0-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm multicharge-0.3.0-3.fc42.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/tmpibziy51v')] checks: 32, packages: 5 multicharge.src: E: spelling-error ('Electronegativity', 'Summary(en_US) Electronegativity -> Electromagnetically') multicharge.src: E: spelling-error ('equilibration', 'Summary(en_US) equilibration -> liberation') multicharge.src: E: spelling-error ('Electronegativity', '%description -l en_US Electronegativity -> Electromagnetically') multicharge.src: E: spelling-error ('equilibration', '%description -l en_US equilibration -> liberation') multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Electronegativity', 'Summary(en_US) Electronegativity -> Electromagnetically') multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('equilibration', 'Summary(en_US) equilibration -> liberation') multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Electronegativity', '%description -l en_US Electronegativity -> Electromagnetically') multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('equilibration', '%description -l en_US equilibration -> liberation') multicharge-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ================================================================================================= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 1 warnings, 39 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 1.9 s ================================================================================================= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: multicharge-debuginfo-0.3.0-3.fc42.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/tmpopzt7dip')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ================================================================================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ================================================================================================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 multicharge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/multicharge /lib64/libm.so.6 multicharge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/multicharge /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 ^^^ This is likely a false positive. multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Electronegativity', 'Summary(en_US) Electronegativity -> Electromagnetically') multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('equilibration', 'Summary(en_US) equilibration -> liberation') multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Electronegativity', '%description -l en_US Electronegativity -> Electromagnetically') multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('equilibration', '%description -l en_US equilibration -> liberation') multicharge-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings, 36 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 2.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/grimme-lab/multicharge/archive/v0.3.0/multicharge-0.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2fcc1f80871f404f005e9db458ffaec95bb28a19516a0245278cd3175b63a6b2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2fcc1f80871f404f005e9db458ffaec95bb28a19516a0245278cd3175b63a6b2 Requires -------- multicharge (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libflexiblas64.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_5.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmctc-lib.so.0()(64bit) libmulticharge.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) multicharge-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libmulticharge.so.0()(64bit) multicharge(x86-64) pkgconfig(mctc-lib) multicharge-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): multicharge-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- multicharge: libmulticharge.so.0()(64bit) multicharge multicharge(x86-64) multicharge-devel: multicharge-devel multicharge-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(multicharge) multicharge-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libmulticharge.so.0.3.0-0.3.0-3.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit) multicharge-debuginfo multicharge-debuginfo(x86-64) multicharge-debugsource: multicharge-debugsource multicharge-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 2310391 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, R, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH This package is ================ === APPROVED === ================
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/multicharge
Thanks for the review!
FEDORA-2024-62d6632b4a (multicharge-0.3.0-3.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-62d6632b4a
FEDORA-2024-62d6632b4a 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-2024-62d6632b4a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-62d6632b4a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-000f090912 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-2024-000f090912 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-000f090912 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c (mstore-0.3.0-2.fc40 and multicharge-0.3.0-3.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c
FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d (dftd4-3.7.0-4.fc41, mstore-0.3.0-2.fc41, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d
FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d (dftd4-3.7.0-4.fc41, mstore-0.3.0-2.fc41, and 2 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c (dftd4-3.7.0-4.fc40, mstore-0.3.0-2.fc40, and 2 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.