spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/alexvsbus-2024.11.21.0-1/alexvsbus.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/alexvsbus-2024.11.21.0-1/alexvsbus-2024.11.21.0-1.fc41.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=129610569 Description: Alex vs Bus: The Race is a free and open source platform runner game in which a man who depends on public transportation in a developing country needs to run in order to catch the bus, or else he will have to wait an eternity for the next bus to come. Fedora Account System Username: suve
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8699341 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2347551-alexvsbus/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08699341-alexvsbus/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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ===== 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", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 and/or GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 131 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/alexvbus/2347551- alexvsbus/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128 [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/games(filesystem) [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [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. [ ]: 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 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]: 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 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in alexvsbus-data [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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. [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]: 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: alexvsbus-2024.11.21.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm alexvsbus-data-2024.11.21.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm alexvsbus-2024.11.21.0-1.fc43.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/tmptv1cxwnq')] checks: 32, packages: 3 alexvsbus.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/alexvsbus alexvsbus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary alexvsbus alexvsbus.x86_64: W: no-documentation alexvsbus-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: alexvsbus-debuginfo-2024.11.21.0-1.fc43.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/tmptnfape2_')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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: 3 alexvsbus.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/alexvsbus /lib64/libSDL2-2.0.so.0 alexvsbus.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/alexvsbus alexvsbus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary alexvsbus alexvsbus-data.noarch: W: no-documentation alexvsbus.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/M374LX/alexvsbus/archive/2024.11.21.0/alexvsbus-2024.11.21.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 31b07bcb16ab1f8f0f2853ba26088ecfb729a51bab5bd8937f85e2ce1215f8fb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 31b07bcb16ab1f8f0f2853ba26088ecfb729a51bab5bd8937f85e2ce1215f8fb Requires -------- alexvsbus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): alexvsbus-data libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libraylib.so.450()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) alexvsbus-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- alexvsbus: alexvsbus alexvsbus(x86-64) application() application(alexvsbus.desktop) alexvsbus-data: alexvsbus-data Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2347551 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Perl, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) May need the hicolor-icon-theme package b) Please adapt the Makefile to use to get position independent executable c) Please use desktop-file install or desktop-file-validate https://github.com/M374LX/alexvsbus/blob/main/icons/alexvsbus.desktop d) Do package the documentation https://github.com/M374LX/alexvsbus/tree/main/docs/manual e) Consider packaging the CC license file as well https://github.com/M374LX/alexvsbus/tree/main/docs/licenses
> a) May need the hicolor-icon-theme package Oops. Added. > b) Please adapt the Makefile to use to get position independent executable Done through a sed invocation. > c) Please use desktop-file install or desktop-file-validate Fixed. Also wrote an AppStream metainfo file. > d) Do package the documentation Done. > e) Consider packaging the CC license file as well Fixed. Also added the file containing full GPL text. spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/alexvsbus-2024.11.21.0-2/alexvsbus.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/alexvsbus-2024.11.21.0-2/alexvsbus-2024.11.21.0-2.fc42.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130885739
MOCK REVIEW: 1. The spec looks clean and adheres to Fedora packaging conventions. 2. Consider adding `%post` and `%postun` scriptlets since your package installs `.desktop` files and icon assets. These ensure the desktop database and icon cache are properly updated on install/uninstall: Maybe refer this, - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop_Documentation_Presentation_Options-Example-spec - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NewMIMESystem Overall, great work! With the above tweak, the package would be even more robust and compliant.
The pages you linked are egregiously outdated: one of them was last updated in 2008, the other in 2009. The desktop-database and mimeinfo update scriptlets are not needed since Fedora 25. https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Scriptlets&oldid=468484#desktop-database
Thanks for the comments Srisharan. Fedora could do with means of indicating what documentation applies to recent releases. Please run fedora-review tool on the latest package build and fill in the empty fields with your assessment wher you can.
Updated to newest upstream release. spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/alexvsbus-2025.06.15.0-1/alexvsbus.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/alexvsbus-2025.06.15.0-1/alexvsbus-2025.06.15.0-1.fc42.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134036875
Created attachment 2094175 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8699341 to 9168865
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9168865 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2347551-alexvsbus/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09168865-alexvsbus/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.
Updated to newest upstream release. (That was quick!) spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0-1/alexvsbus.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0-1/alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0-1.fc42.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134068809
Benson, do you need something from me in order for this to move forward?
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 and/or GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 134 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/alexvbus/2347551- alexvsbus/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/games(filesystem) [ ]: %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. [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 183549 bytes in 31 files. [ ]: 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 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]: 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in alexvsbus-data [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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: alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm alexvsbus-data-2025.06.16.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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/tmpf0jyaqsy')] checks: 32, packages: 3 alexvsbus.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 53% alexvsbus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary alexvsbus alexvsbus-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: alexvsbus-debuginfo-2025.06.16.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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/tmpwk561akb')] 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: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 3 alexvsbus.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/alexvsbus /lib64/libm.so.6 alexvsbus.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/alexvsbus /lib64/libSDL2-2.0.so.0 alexvsbus.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 53% alexvsbus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary alexvsbus alexvsbus-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/M374LX/alexvsbus/archive/2025.06.16.0/alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58f1a74d9889630849f20fbd11b624f90f89531502039f7f3afaee2de6dd6e8d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58f1a74d9889630849f20fbd11b624f90f89531502039f7f3afaee2de6dd6e8d Requires -------- alexvsbus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): alexvsbus-data libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libraylib.so.550()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) alexvsbus-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme Provides -------- alexvsbus: alexvsbus alexvsbus(x86-64) application() application(alexvsbus.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(alexvsbus.metainfo.xml) alexvsbus-data: alexvsbus-data Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2347551 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Python, PHP, R, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Consider not packaging the pdf version of the manual as not built from source. Pandoc can regenerate pdf pandoc -i manual.html -o manual2.pdf a bit nicer is docbook that can be opened using yelp pandoc -f html -t docbook -i manual.html -o manual.xml For docbook, if you do generate it consider installing the xml file and the images under %{_datadir}/help/en/alexvbus/ and adding %dir %{_datadir}/help/en %lang(en) %{_datadir}/help/en/alexvbus to the files listing b) Please create a separate noarch documentation subpackage c) Consider using sdl2_compat https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/sdl2-compat/sdl2-compat/ d) Consider adding a smoke test %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/alexvbus -h e) Only point (b) is blocking.
a) Removed from the package. b) Done. c) sdl2_compat-devel provides SDL2-devel, so this happens automatically. The "real" SDL2 has already been retired in F42. d) Done. spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0-2/alexvsbus.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0-2/alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0-2.fc42.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=136336788
Created attachment 2104423 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9168865 to 9457122
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9457122 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2347551-alexvsbus/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09457122-alexvsbus/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.
Ping.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 and/or GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 134 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/alexvbus/2347551- alexvsbus/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/games(filesystem) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 183549 bytes in 31 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 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in alexvsbus-data [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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: alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm alexvsbus-data-2025.06.16.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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/tmpf0jyaqsy')] checks: 32, packages: 3 alexvsbus.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 53% alexvsbus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary alexvsbus alexvsbus-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: alexvsbus-debuginfo-2025.06.16.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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/tmpwk561akb')] 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: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 3 alexvsbus.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/alexvsbus /lib64/libm.so.6 alexvsbus.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/alexvsbus /lib64/libSDL2-2.0.so.0 alexvsbus.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 53% alexvsbus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary alexvsbus alexvsbus-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/M374LX/alexvsbus/archive/2025.06.16.0/alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58f1a74d9889630849f20fbd11b624f90f89531502039f7f3afaee2de6dd6e8d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58f1a74d9889630849f20fbd11b624f90f89531502039f7f3afaee2de6dd6e8d Requires -------- alexvsbus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): alexvsbus-data libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libraylib.so.550()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) alexvsbus-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme Provides -------- alexvsbus: alexvsbus alexvsbus(x86-64) application() application(alexvsbus.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(alexvsbus.metainfo.xml) alexvsbus-data: alexvsbus-data Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2347551 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Python, PHP, R, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Sorry for delay. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/alexvsbus
FEDORA-2025-80a77658d1 (alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-80a77658d1
FEDORA-2025-791c402c2c (alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0-2.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-791c402c2c
FEDORA-2025-791c402c2c has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-791c402c2c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-791c402c2c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-80a77658d1 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-80a77658d1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-80a77658d1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-673ec8d684 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-673ec8d684` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-673ec8d684 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-9831accfe9 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-9831accfe9` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9831accfe9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-673ec8d684 (alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0-3.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-9831accfe9 (alexvsbus-2025.06.16.0-3.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.