Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08793556-mankalaengine/mankalaengine.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08793556-mankalaengine/mankalaengine-1.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: MankalaEngine is an engine used for creating computerized opponents for Mancala variants. Fedora Account System Username: srisharanvs
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8798586 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353918-mankalaengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08798586-mankalaengine/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages 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.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08798696-mankalaengine/mankalaengine.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08798696-mankalaengine/mankalaengine-1.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: MankalaEngine is an engine used for creating computerized opponents for Mancala variants. Fedora Account System Username: srisharanvs
Created attachment 2081117 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8798586 to 8798724
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8798724 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353918-mankalaengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08798724-mankalaengine/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.
Some of the review output from https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353918-mankalaengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08798724-mankalaengine/fedora-review/review.txt mankalaengine-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Development files for %{Name}. mankalaengine-tui-games.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot TUI Binaries for different Mancala Variants. mankalaengine.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: mankalaengine-1.1.tar.gz mankalaengine.src: E: description-line-too-long MankalaEngine is an engine used for creating computerized opponents for Mancala variants. mankalaengine.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long MankalaEngine is an engine used for creating computerized opponents for Mancala variants. mankalaengine-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long The %{Name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for developing applications and plugins that use %{Name}. mankalaengine-tui-games.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long The %{Name}-binaries package contains TUI binaries for different Mancala Variants supported by MankalaEngine. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/mankalaengine, /usr/include/mankalaengine [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/mankalaengine, /usr/lib64/cmake/mankalaengine For explanations of the errors and warnings use rpmlint on the command line for example: $rpmlint -e summary-ended-with-dot For directories see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/
Please also ensure that the source package is taken from invent.kde.org mankalaengine.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: mankalaengine-1.1.tar.gz Examine other spec files being reviewed to see how this is done.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08805883-mankalaengine/mankalaengine.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08805883-mankalaengine/mankalaengine-1.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: MankalaEngine is an engine used for creating computerized opponents for Mancala variants. Fedora Account System Username: srisharanvs
Created attachment 2081444 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8798724 to 8805886
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8805886 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353918-mankalaengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08805886-mankalaengine/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.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08805943-mankalaengine/mankalaengine.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08805943-mankalaengine/mankalaengine-1.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: MankalaEngine is an engine used for creating computerized opponents for Mancala variants. Fedora Account System Username: srisharanvs
Created attachment 2081459 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8805886 to 8805947
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8805947 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353918-mankalaengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08805947-mankalaengine/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.
These warnings should be fixed: mankalaengine-devel.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{Name} mankalaengine-devel.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %{Name} mankalaengine-devel.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %{Name} mankalaengine-tui-games.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %{Name} mankalaengine-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Development files for %{Name}. mankalaengine-tui-games.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot TUI Binaries for different Mancala Variants.
> %{_libdir}/cmake/mankalaengine/ CMake files belongs in the -devel package. > %{_libdir}/libMankalaEngine.so.* Shared libraries installed directly into %{_libdir} SHOULD NOT be listed in the %files section of the spec by using a glob in a way that conceals important parts of the file name (e.g. libfoo.so*), since changes to the SONAME also result in a changed file name in most cases. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08819753-mankalaengine/mankalaengine.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08819753-mankalaengine/mankalaengine-1.1.20250130.7fa23e7-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: MankalaEngine is an engine used for creating computerized opponents for Mancala variants. Fedora Account System Username: srisharanvs
Created attachment 2082086 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8805947 to 8823321
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8823321 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353918-mankalaengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08823321-mankalaengine/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 ===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: 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", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/mankalaengine/licensecheck.txt Upstream also ships CC0-1.0.txt, please clarify why this is ignored [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [?]: 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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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 1776 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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 mankalaengine-devel , mankalaengine-tui-games https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package When a subpackage requires the base package, it MUST do so using a fully versioned arch-specific (for non-noarch packages) dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Devel packages are an example of a package that must require their base packages using a fully versioned dependency. [-]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. No documentation/information about tui.patch. [-]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mankalaengine-1.1.20250130.7fa23e7-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm mankalaengine-devel-1.1.20250130.7fa23e7-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm mankalaengine-tui-games-1.1.20250130.7fa23e7-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm mankalaengine-1.1.20250130.7fa23e7-1.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/tmphd84xxmr')] checks: 32, packages: 4 mankalaengine-tui-games.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bohnespieltui mankalaengine-tui-games.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pallangulitui mankalaengine-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation mankalaengine-tui-games.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mankalaengine-debuginfo-1.1.20250130.7fa23e7-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm mankalaengine-tui-games-debuginfo-1.1.20250130.7fa23e7-1.fc43.x86_64.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/tmp3vtfa58z')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 18 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "mankalaengine-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "mankalaengine". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "mankalaengine-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "mankalaengine-tui-games-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "mankalaengine-tui-games". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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: 5 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://invent.kde.org/joaotgouveia/mankalaengine/-/archive/7fa23e746ce7dbb793fc6af9482304157479e5c4/mankalaengine-7fa23e7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 862d5363c5fdbb3cca60ce4d86cd352f88b3e8dad735cf79bad2b127657b6b16 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 862d5363c5fdbb3cca60ce4d86cd352f88b3e8dad735cf79bad2b127657b6b16 Requires -------- mankalaengine (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) mesa-libGL qt6-qtbase rtld(GNU_HASH) mankalaengine-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libMankalaEngine.so.1()(64bit) mankalaengine-tui-games (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libMankalaEngine.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- mankalaengine: libMankalaEngine.so.1()(64bit) mankalaengine mankalaengine(x86-64) mankalaengine-devel: cmake(MankalaEngine) cmake(mankalaengine) mankalaengine-devel mankalaengine-devel(x86-64) mankalaengine-tui-games: mankalaengine-tui-games mankalaengine-tui-games(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name mankalaengine --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, R, PHP, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Summary: ======== * Please clarify CC0-1.0 license * Document/link of tui.patch * -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr should not be needed, since %cmake macro sets it. Check rpm --eval %cmake * Upstream ships tests. Good to run them, but not critical. * -devel is missing fully versioned arch-specific on base package.
Any updates?
How should I provide the document link for tui.patch? Other stuff have ben fixed
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08945082-mankalaengine/mankalaengine.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08945082-mankalaengine/mankalaengine-1.1.20250130.7fa23e7-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: MankalaEngine is an engine used for creating computerized opponents for Mancala variants. Fedora Account System Username: srisharanvs
Created attachment 2085961 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8823321 to 8945084
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8945084 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353918-mankalaengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08945084-mankalaengine/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.
Hey Jonny, Any other inconsistencies in the build? @hegjon
(In reply to Srisharan V S from comment #20) > How should I provide the document link for tui.patch? > Other stuff have ben fixed It depends on the patch. Did you write it? Is it for Fedora only? If not, have it been reported upstream? If someone have reported upstream; include a link to the issue tracker, etc. These guidelines are good https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/ Here is an example from source-foundry-hack-fonts.spec: # https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack/pull/644 # Use systemId urn:fontconfig:fonts.dtd to reference the fonts.dtd type defintion #644 Patch0: https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack/pull/644.patch From your spec file: Patch0: tui.patch #The Patch contains the Updated instructions for the variant executables - https://invent.kde.org/joaotgouveia/mankalaengine/-/merge_requests/10 Looking at the merge requires 10, the title "Installing Tui binaries" would probably be a good comment. Why is the merge request 10 different from the patch? As a side note: I would remove the "The Patch contains the" part of the sentence.
(In reply to Srisharan V S from comment #24) > Hey Jonny, Any other inconsistencies in the build? > @hegjon The rest is good, just a better clarification of the patch.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08951905-mankalaengine/mankalaengine.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08951905-mankalaengine/mankalaengine-1.1.20250130.7fa23e7-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: MankalaEngine is an engine used for creating computerized opponents for Mancala variants. Fedora Account System Username: srisharanvs
> # Installing TUI binaries: https://invent.kde.org/joaotgouveia/mankalaengine/-/merge_requests/10 > # https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353918 > Patch0: tui.patch No need to include this bugzilla review ticket in there, comments and link to upstream issue/MR/PR tracker. Why do tui.patch differs from https://invent.kde.org/joaotgouveia/mankalaengine/-/merge_requests/10.patch ? MR10 is 78 lines while tui-patch is 399 lines.
Created attachment 2086384 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8945084 to 8951921
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8951921 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353918-mankalaengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08951921-mankalaengine/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.
Im sorry, actually, tui.patch is the following commits, https://invent.kde.org/joaotgouveia/mankalaengine/-/commit/bbcfb3150f68479d9575e4e70148752633121d05 https://invent.kde.org/joaotgouveia/mankalaengine/-/commit/30639d57fc0f3bffb2c8128a3fab64bfdfc25f91 https://invent.kde.org/joaotgouveia/mankalaengine/-/commit/ab143f7a686aabd01e5df39f16b8bcffb250365f I manually generated the tui.patch between the state of the repo immediately after the global commit mentioned in the file and the current state of the repo. I just included the latest commit as a reference comment. Should that be a problem?
Please wait, I am generating a more cleaner build.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08952348-mankalaengine/mankalaengine.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08952348-mankalaengine/mankalaengine-1.1.20250130.7fa23e7-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: MankalaEngine is an engine used for creating computerized opponents for Mancala variants. Fedora Account System Username: srisharanvs
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08952368-mankalaengine/mankalaengine.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/srisharanvs/mankalaengine/fedora-41-x86_64/08952368-mankalaengine/mankalaengine-1.1.20250130.7fa23e7-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: MankalaEngine is an engine used for creating computerized opponents for Mancala variants. Fedora Account System Username: srisharanvs
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8952367 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353918-mankalaengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08952367-mankalaengine/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8952373 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353918-mankalaengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08952373-mankalaengine/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.
The latest build(above) should be good.
Review approved!
Congratulations Srisharan. Am willing to sponsor, as per guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#comment_on_reviews Please do three mock reviews and link them here.
Thank you Jonny Heggheim, Benson. Also Benson, as per Package maintainer guidelines or Packager sponsor policy, a maintainer is not required to do any mock reviews. Is this a request from you?
You have contributed to the upstream project, however once you are a packager, you can bring in other packages. It is good to demonstrate this this will be ok. You can of course demonstrate knowledge of the packaging process through other means listed at: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#requirements If you choose to do a few reviews, some possible options are: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353412 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2336907 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332834 Others can be found from the links at: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/#commenting From https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129390 and other similar tickets, tt is expected that new packagers do a few reviews. No rush, ideally choose packages in programming languages you are comfortable with and bring functionality that you think would be useful in Fedora. If you want to bring in another package, or make pull requests to update packages, this is also fine, if someone else is also willing to sponsor you, that is also fine.
This also needs a second review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2347551 The packager maintains some other games in Fedora: https://src.fedoraproject.org/user/suve
Thanks for helping with alexvbus. The following may be of interest: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/gaming/ https://fedoraproject.org/labs/games
Hi Benson, I have done mock review for 2 more packages other than alexvbus. kconfiglib - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252811 zmusic - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2336907 Can we move forward with the MankalaEngine packaging process?
Thanks. Will check the reviews. You may find the following helpful: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-join/
Reviews are much improved. Will sponsor you. You need to check if the Fedora Project Contributor Agreement is ok for you: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/fpca/ If it is ok, you should be able to agree to it at either: https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/ or https://fas.fedoraproject.org/ then check for an agreements tab.
Thanks. Can now import. You are also welcome to finish reviews.