Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/termcolours.spec SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/termcolours-0.5.4-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Automatically set unique terminal colour schemes Fedora Account System Username: mavit
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 'GPL-3.0+'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 ===== 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. [!]: 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. [s]: 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]: 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: termcolours-0.5.4-1.fc44.noarch.rpm termcolours-0.5.4-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpnvv5g18l')] checks: 32, packages: 2 termcolours.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0+ termcolours.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0+ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 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: 1 termcolours.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0+ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://codeberg.org/mavit/termcolours/releases/download/0.5.4/termcolours-0.5.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2c3c0a833911a112f7c14ee2cdcee77f65fde31659d514822cf1e6d49ba09c52 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2c3c0a833911a112f7c14ee2cdcee77f65fde31659d514822cf1e6d49ba09c52 Requires -------- termcolours (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.42.0) perl(:VERSION) perl(Digest::MD5) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(feature) perl(version) perl(warnings) Provides -------- termcolours: termcolours Summary: a) Correct license tag seems to be: GPL-3.0-or-later b) Please ship latest version 0.6.1: https://codeberg.org/mavit/termcolours/releases
Thanks for the review. Licence tag fixed, and updated to latest release. SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/termcolours-0.7.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9741900 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2373144-termcolours/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09741900-termcolours/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.
Thanks, package is APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/termcolours
FEDORA-2025-4b32f5785d (termcolours-0.7.0-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4b32f5785d
FEDORA-2025-efc9eaf8f8 (termcolours-0.7.0-2.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-efc9eaf8f8
FEDORA-2025-4b32f5785d 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-2025-4b32f5785d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4b32f5785d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-efc9eaf8f8 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-efc9eaf8f8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-efc9eaf8f8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-4b32f5785d (termcolours-0.7.0-2.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-efc9eaf8f8 (termcolours-0.7.0-2.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-1bcb4f9b4d (termcolours-0.7.0-3.el10_2) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.2. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-1bcb4f9b4d
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-6c6a6f8ef0 (termcolours-0.7.0-3.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-6c6a6f8ef0
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b89794e05f (termcolours-0.7.0-3.el8) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b89794e05f
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-7eda979cff (termcolours-0.7.0-3.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-7eda979cff
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-1bcb4f9b4d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-1bcb4f9b4d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-7eda979cff has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-7eda979cff See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-6c6a6f8ef0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-6c6a6f8ef0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b89794e05f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b89794e05f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-1bcb4f9b4d (termcolours-0.7.0-3.el10_2) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-7eda979cff (termcolours-0.7.0-3.el10_1) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-6c6a6f8ef0 (termcolours-0.7.0-3.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b89794e05f (termcolours-0.7.0-3.el8) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.