Package rename from: golang-codeberg-gbcox-mpris-webhook to golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost. No functional changes were made. Previous package review for ~mpris-webhook: rhbz#2376545 Provides: golang-codeberg-gbcox-mpris-webhook = %{version}-%{release} Obsoletes: golang-codeberg-gbcox-mpris-webhook < 1.1.6-1.20250714git682a1dd spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gbcox/dogfood/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09271170-golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost/golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gbcox/dogfood/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09271170-golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost/golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost-1.1.6-1.20250714git682a1dd.fc43.src.rpm Reproducible: Always
I will take this review.
There are two minor things you will need to fix. First, the name of this bug doesn't match the pattern the automated repository tools expect. I think that "fedpkg request-repo" will fail unless you change the bug name to "Review Request: golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost". That a review request is a rename request should be noted in the initial bug comment, but not in the bug title. Second, note the rpmlint complaint that the Summary line is not capitalized. Generally, the name of a package should not appear in the Summary. I suggest removing "%{project} -" from the front of the Summary line. This package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [x]: 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]: 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 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 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 775 bytes in 1 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ===== 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: golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost-1.1.6-1.20250714git682a1dd.fc43.x86_64.rpm golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost-1.1.6-1.20250714git682a1dd.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/tmpxhph4ius')] checks: 32, packages: 2 golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost.src: W: summary-not-capitalized beetpost - Playback Event Dispatcher for Beetbrainz golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized beetpost - Playback Event Dispatcher for Beetbrainz golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.6-1 ['1.1.6-1.20250714git682a1dd.fc43', '1.1.6-1.20250714git682a1dd'] golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost.x86_64: W: empty-%postun 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost-debuginfo-1.1.6-1.20250714git682a1dd.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/tmpcsk85na5')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory ============================ 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: 2 golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/beetpost /lib64/libresolv.so.2 golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized beetpost - Playback Event Dispatcher for Beetbrainz golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.6-1 ['1.1.6-1.20250714git682a1dd.fc43', '1.1.6-1.20250714git682a1dd'] golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost.x86_64: W: empty-%postun 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://codeberg.org/gbcox/beetpost/archive/682a1dd4dff9d32c1716a9635d47cf08b5f05a8a.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 30e85fd9af5320a2facfc711a6e305b8fe4981a63a353ecba3340c0c3c67e5d6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 30e85fd9af5320a2facfc711a6e305b8fe4981a63a353ecba3340c0c3c67e5d6 Requires -------- golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost: golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost(x86-64) golang-codeberg-gbcox-mpris-webhook Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2379819 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Ocaml, Python, fonts, Java, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
I forgot to mention that I filed https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/530 about fedora-review's handling of the systemd_user macros.
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #3) > I forgot to mention that I filed https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/530 > about fedora-review's handling of the systemd_user macros. Thanks! Much appreciated! There are two minor things you will need to fix.... I'll make both of those changes, thanks again!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost
FEDORA-2025-f56ed899c1 (golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost-1.1.6-1.20250714git682a1dd.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-f56ed899c1
FEDORA-2025-f56ed899c1 (golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost-1.1.6-1.20250714git682a1dd.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-41f77113e2 (golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost-1.1.6-1.20250714git682a1dd.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-41f77113e2
FEDORA-2025-41f77113e2 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-2025-41f77113e2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-41f77113e2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-de1f5d9afe 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-de1f5d9afe` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-de1f5d9afe See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-067d9470ca 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-2025-067d9470ca` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-067d9470ca See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-067d9470ca (golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost-1.7.1-1.20250720gita22160c.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
The ticket summary is not in the correct format. Expected: Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here> Found: Review Request: Rename from golang-codeberg-gbcox-mpris-webhook to golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetpost As a consequence, the package name cannot be parsed and submitted to be automatically build. Please modify the ticket summary and trigger a build by typing [fedora-review-service-build]. --- 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.