Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-wpe/gap-pkg-wpe.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-wpe/gap-pkg-wpe-0.8-1.fc43.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: WPE provides efficient methods for working with Wreath Product Elements in GAP. I am willing to swap reviews.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9369258 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2379924-gap-pkg-wpe/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09369258-gap-pkg-wpe/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.
I updated the spec to use the new gap declarative buildsystem. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-wpe/gap-pkg-wpe.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-wpe/gap-pkg-wpe-0.8-1.fc44.src.rpm
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-wpe/gap-pkg-wpe-0.8-1.fc44.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- 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 first rsync attempt failed. Let's try that again. [fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2108021 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9369258 to 9629697
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9629697 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2379924-gap-pkg-wpe/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09629697-gap-pkg-wpe/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 ===== 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", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 75 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2379924-gap-pkg-wpe/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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]: 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 1960 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: gap-pkg-wpe-0.8-1.fc44.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-wpe-doc-0.8-1.fc44.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-wpe-0.8-1.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/tmp4b06wkhn')] checks: 32, packages: 3 gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation gap-pkg-wpe.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-wpe/COPYRIGHT gap-pkg-wpe.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-wpe/LICENSE gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/chooser.html ../../GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/lefttoc.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/manual.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.css gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/manual.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.js gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/nocolorprompt.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/ragged.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/rainbow.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/times.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/times.css gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/toggless.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/toggless.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings, 12 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 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: 2 gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation gap-pkg-wpe.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-wpe/COPYRIGHT gap-pkg-wpe.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-wpe/LICENSE gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/chooser.html ../../GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/lefttoc.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/manual.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.css gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/manual.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.js gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/nocolorprompt.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/ragged.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/rainbow.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/times.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/times.css gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/toggless.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css gap-pkg-wpe-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/WPE/doc/toggless.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings, 8 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gap-packages/WPE/archive/v0.8/WPE-0.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e5997fa5546317b258454c3d578ad3fc36e239e600eb0a82c0b99347d07bf66a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e5997fa5546317b258454c3d578ad3fc36e239e600eb0a82c0b99347d07bf66a Requires -------- gap-pkg-wpe (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gap-core gap-pkg-wpe-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gap-online-help gap-pkg-wpe Provides -------- gap-pkg-wpe: gap-pkg-wpe gap-pkg-wpe-doc: gap-pkg-wpe-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2379924 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, Python, Java, SugarActivity, R, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please ask upstream to update FSF address in license and copyright files b) Approved c) Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2401972 would be appreciated if time allows.
Thank you for the review! I was too slow; Ben already took the qthreads review bug. Let me know if there is another package you would like me to review.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gap-pkg-wpe
FEDORA-2025-bb215849ca (gap-pkg-wpe-0.8-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-bb215849ca
FEDORA-2025-bb215849ca 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-bb215849ca \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-bb215849ca See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-bb215849ca (gap-pkg-wpe-0.8-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.