Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: <https://github.com/NorwayFun/hunspell-ka/blob/main/hunspell-ka.spec> SRPM URL: <https://github.com/NorwayFun/hunspell-ka/blob/main/hunspell-ka-0.0.1-2.fc43.src.rpm> Description: <Hunspell dictionaries for Georgian language> Fedora Account System Username: norwayfun
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.
The <brackets> in the template are, perhaps confusingly, meant to indicate placeholders. The entire placeholder, including the brackets, needs to be replaced in order for automation to recognize the fields, e.g. below. I have also edited the URLs to point at the "raw" text file and source RPM, because HTML UI representations of these files aren’t useful for automation either. Spec URL: https://github.com/NorwayFun/hunspell-ka/raw/refs/heads/main/hunspell-ka.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/NorwayFun/hunspell-ka/raw/refs/heads/main/hunspell-ka-0.0.1-2.fc43.src.rpm Description: Hunspell dictionaries for Georgian language Fedora Account System Username: norwayfun
URL for copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/norwayfun/hunspell-ka/
I'll review it.
Few things I'd like to address: * "License" field. We're switching to SPDX format and the correct license field value is "MIT AND CC-BY-4.0". Please change it before uploading. * When a package doesn't have a license text in a separate file we advise packager to query upstream to include it. Please do when time permits. * Versioning seems wrong. I see that upstream has 0.1 version tagged not 0.0.1 * Please provide a full path to the Source. I advise you to use something like "%{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz". * "Release" field value is incoherent with %changelog section. I advise you simply switch to %autorelease and %autochangelog. Please address/explain these ones and I'll finish my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'MIT and CC-BY 4.0'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 ^^^ see my note above. ===== MUST items ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: The package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No separate development files. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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 3668 bytes in 1 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. Please do in the meantime. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. See my notes above. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify in %prep. [x]: Package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: No %check section. [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: hunspell-ka-0.0.1-2.fc43.noarch.rpm hunspell-ka-0.0.1-2.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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/tmpt6lla8r8')] checks: 32, packages: 2 hunspell-ka.spec: W: no-%check-section hunspell-ka.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ka_GE-0.0.1.tar.gz hunspell-ka.noarch: W: invalid-license CC-BY 4.0 hunspell-ka.src: W: invalid-license CC-BY 4.0 hunspell-ka.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.1-1 ['0.0.1-2.fc43', '0.0.1-2'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ^^^ See my notes above. 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: 1 hunspell-ka.noarch: W: invalid-license CC-BY 4.0 hunspell-ka.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.1-1 ['0.0.1-2.fc43', '0.0.1-2'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Requires -------- hunspell-ka (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hunspell-filesystem Provides -------- hunspell-ka: hunspell-ka Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2349101 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, Python, C/C++, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Hello, Thanks for the review! I corrected almost everything, you can check changes on both git and copr. I'll try to contact upstream author, but he seems to be inactive lately. Temuri
Good. I don't see any other issues so this package is ================ === APPROVED === ================
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hunspell-ka
Temuri, ping :)
Hello :) Anything needed from my side?
(In reply to Temuri Doghonadze from comment #10) > Hello :) > Anything needed from my side? Yes, you need to upload sources, then build, then submit your build. You may proceed from there: * https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/#add_package_to_source_code_management_scm_system_and_set_owner
I cannot get 'fedpkg clone hunspell-ka' command working for now. I think Gwyn forgot to add me into the 'packagers' grp (cannot see it here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/user/norwayfun/groups).
Just clicked around and in fact I am member of the packagers group. But still: [temuri@fedora hunspell-ka]$ fedpkg clone hunspell-ka Cloning into 'hunspell-ka'... temuri.org: Permission denied (publickey). fatal: Could not read from remote repository. Please make sure you have the correct access rights and the repository exists. Could not execute clone: Failed to execute command. When I go to here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hunspell-ka, "clone" dropdown on top right side says "Only members of the packager group(s) can clone via ssh" And yes, I got ssh key uploaded
OK, I got it working and just did a build. What's now? :)
(In reply to Temuri Doghonadze from comment #14) > OK, I got it working and just did a build. > What's now? :) Oh cool, I''ve just saw that you uploaded sources and did your first build for Rawhide! Perhaps there were some glitches but right now everything looks ok. Any build for Rawhide uploads to the repository automatically and you don't need to submit it explicitly. Now you should consider building packages for other branches than Rawhide and submit them to updates-testing.Please follow this link: * https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/#update_your_branches And thank you for the efforts!
(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #15) > (In reply to Temuri Doghonadze from comment #14) > > OK, I got it working and just did a build. > > What's now? :) > > Oh cool, I''ve just saw that you uploaded sources and did your first build > for Rawhide! Perhaps there were some glitches but right now everything looks > ok. Any build for Rawhide uploads to the repository automatically and you > don't need to submit it explicitly. > > Now you should consider building packages for other branches than Rawhide > and submit them to updates-testing.Please follow this link: > > * > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/ > New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/#update_your_branches > > And thank you for the efforts! One more thing. If you consider building for other branches (Fedora 40, 41, 42, EPEL, etc) first you need to request them: * https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Maintenance_Guide/#requesting_branches
mmmm I think I did this too.
(In reply to Temuri Doghonadze from comment #17) > mmmm I think I did this too. Yes, so far so good. Now you only need to submit the resulting builds for f42 and f41 to Bodhi. It it possible to do it with CLI or using web-interface (https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/new).
This step is also done :)
(In reply to Temuri Doghonadze from comment #19) > This step is also done :) Well, that's it then :) Just one more yet very small detail. Next time please add a number of Bugzilla ticket you suppose to address with the particular build (there is a field for that!). It will be closed automatically as soon ad the package hits stable branch(es). Now we'll wait for ~7 days and if nobody complains then the builds will be included into stable branches. Meanwhile you may test them and add points of karma. Well done!
FEDORA-2025-c87bb9a1fa (hunspell-ka-0.1-2.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-c87bb9a1fa
FEDORA-2025-843377c62f (hunspell-ka-0.1-2.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-843377c62f
Thank you for your assistance, Peter!
FEDORA-2025-843377c62f 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-2025-843377c62f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-843377c62f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-c87bb9a1fa 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-2025-c87bb9a1fa \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-c87bb9a1fa See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-843377c62f (hunspell-ka-0.1-2.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-c87bb9a1fa (hunspell-ka-0.1-2.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-cdbfccf593 (hunspell-ka-0.1-3.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-cdbfccf593
FEDORA-2025-3c72b946a8 (hunspell-ka-0.1-3.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3c72b946a8
FEDORA-2025-cdbfccf593 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-2025-cdbfccf593` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-cdbfccf593 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-3c72b946a8 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-2025-3c72b946a8` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3c72b946a8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-cdbfccf593 (hunspell-ka-0.1-3.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-3c72b946a8 (hunspell-ka-0.1-3.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.