spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/freetalk/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08472807-freetalk/freetalk.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/freetalk/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08472807-freetalk/freetalk-4.2-1.fc42.src.rpm description: GNU Freetalk is a console based chat client for Jabber and other XMPP servers. It has context sensitive auto-completion for buddy names, commands, and even ordinary English words. Similar to GNU Emacs, You can customize and extend GNU Freetalk with Scheme language. fas: fed500 This is to unretire an orphaned package. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/freetalk Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8472810 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335700-freetalk/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08472810-freetalk/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/freetalk Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/freetalk See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/freetalk See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /sfs/fedora- review/review-freetalk/licensecheck.txt [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: 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 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 4114 bytes in 7 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: freetalk-4.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm freetalk-4.2-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp502difj1')] checks: 32, packages: 2 freetalk.spec:60: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 60) freetalk.spec:64: W: macro-in-comment %{version} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: freetalk-debuginfo-4.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp1b6qdnn2')] 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/python3.13/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: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/freetalk/freetalk-4.2.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 97d2cf2cc55a3dc40f09c4f089ca9fba7cd4670ddca35afef2e36649b0c9f616 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 97d2cf2cc55a3dc40f09c4f089ca9fba7cd4670ddca35afef2e36649b0c9f616 http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/freetalk/freetalk-4.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bb5b4f29a706af2f891987802200e26b737bcece44338172419755f1eee1b580 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bb5b4f29a706af2f891987802200e26b737bcece44338172419755f1eee1b580 Requires -------- freetalk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libguile-3.0.so.1()(64bit) libguile-3.0.so.1(GUILE_2.0)(64bit) libloudmouth-1.so.0()(64bit) libreadline.so.8()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) words Provides -------- freetalk: freetalk freetalk(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n freetalk Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, Perl, R, Python, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
# Find a way to run a smoke test without generating a configuration file #./freetalk -help 2>&1 | grep 'version %{version}' I do not have a jabber id, so I got about as far as this :| freetalk.spec:60: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 60) clean this up Fix the changelog and you are good to go! Approved.
Could you please do the review properly? The review template explicitly mentions that you need to check all items with [ ] - but you just copy pasted the template. If that would be sufficient, we would not need manual review!
The above was a local run of fedora-review. Are there any additional issue you found ?
No, i did not do the review, I was wondering whether you did the review. From what you wrote it sounds a lot like you only did run fedora-review and maybe tried to run the binary. If you did do the review, and checked all the items that fedora-review leaves as `[ ]` - then please change them to `[x]` in the future. On whether you run fedora-review local or not, I do not care that much. It is only a tool that gives a starting point for the review. The review still needs to be done manually.
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/freetalk See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/freetalk - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/freetalk See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/freetalk ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: 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", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /sfs/fedora- review/review-freetalk/licensecheck.txt v2 or later is 3 or later, rest are few and not delivered. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. Fix from rpmautospec [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [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 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 4114 bytes in 7 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: use of define is ^^ example [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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: freetalk-4.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm freetalk-4.2-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpk74tucmg')] checks: 32, packages: 2 freetalk.spec:60: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 60) - Clean these up. freetalk.spec:64: W: macro-in-comment %{version} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: freetalk-debuginfo-4.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpqr9biber')] 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/python3.13/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: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/freetalk/freetalk-4.2.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 97d2cf2cc55a3dc40f09c4f089ca9fba7cd4670ddca35afef2e36649b0c9f616 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 97d2cf2cc55a3dc40f09c4f089ca9fba7cd4670ddca35afef2e36649b0c9f616 http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/freetalk/freetalk-4.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bb5b4f29a706af2f891987802200e26b737bcece44338172419755f1eee1b580 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bb5b4f29a706af2f891987802200e26b737bcece44338172419755f1eee1b580 Requires -------- freetalk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libguile-3.0.so.1()(64bit) libguile-3.0.so.1(GUILE_2.0)(64bit) libloudmouth-1.so.0()(64bit) libreadline.so.8()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) words Provides -------- freetalk: freetalk freetalk(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n freetalk Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, PHP, Haskell, Perl, Java, Python, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Please let me know if anything else is needed for a positive review result.
The only new thing is the file dup, which as with the other items, fixable after import.
Thanks for the review. Duplicate file listing no longer appears: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/freetalk/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08546558-freetalk/fedora-review/review.txt
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/freetalk/tree/21eca10a3b7d2149758a63a4d3de30659072cdd4 https://release-monitoring.org/project/9831/