Spec URL: http://support.sdformation.fr/dolibarr.spec SRPM URL: http://support.sdformation.fr/dolibarr-20.0.3-0.4.fc41.src.rpm Description: ERP and CRM software for small and medium companies or foundations Fedora Account System Username:prof33 this is my first package and I need a sponsor.
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- 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.
Fixed the summary in the bug title to match the one in the submitted spec file. You must submit the source RPM, not the “built” binary RPM. I’m not planning to take this review, but overall, at a glance, I see a lot of obsolete and/or specifically prohibited boilerplate in the spec file, and it’s going to be time-consuming for a reviewer to wade through all of that. I know that Fedora’s packaging guidelines, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/, are a large document, but I think it would wise to spend some time studying the relevant sections and making an attempt to conform to current practices.
*** Bug 2343403 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2343401 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2343399 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
PhP SIG may also be helpful: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/PHP See also: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PHP/
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
Hello, I have just uploaded a new srpm file and a new spec file. This is my first Fedora rpm and I would like a sponsor to ensure that it complies with all applicable standards. Best regards, Spec URL: http://support.sdformation.fr/dolibarr.spec SRPM URL: http://support.sdformation.fr/dolibarr-22.0.4-3.fc43.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10135441 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2343404-dolibarr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10135441-dolibarr/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file COPYING is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv3+'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 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.