Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Vascom/tde2e/refs/heads/main/tde2e.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Vascom/tde2e/raw/refs/heads/main/tde2e-1.8.51-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: TDE2E is a cross-platform library for building Telegram clients. Reproducible: Always
The ticket summary is not in the correct format. Expected: Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here> Found: Review request: tde2e - Cross-platform library for building Telegram clients 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.
fedora-review-service-build
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9381069 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386835-tde2e/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09381069-tde2e/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Package has .a files: tde2e-devel. Does not provide -static: tde2e-devel. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries 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.
According to the https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_static_libraries, you must add the following: %package devel Provides: %{name}-static = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} > %doc README.md CHANGELOG.md CHANGELOG.md belongs to tdlib and can be removed from this package. > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/td*.pc This package also provides the tdutils.pc file, which is also included in tdlib. You should check whether this file is required for building dependent packages. If so, add the following: %package devel Conflicts: tdlib-devel
> License: BSL-1.0 # BSL-1.0 - main code # GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later - tl-parser code License: BSL-1.0 AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later
> Summary: Development files for %{name} > %description devel > %{summary}. Please add correct description and summary due to absence of the main package.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Vascom/tde2e/refs/heads/main/tde2e.spec All done.
Please update also SRPM and include both URLs in a single message to trigger auto-review bot.
Source URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Vascom/tde2e/refs/heads/main/tde2e.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Vascom/tde2e/raw/refs/heads/main/tde2e-1.8.51-1.fc42.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Vascom/tde2e/refs/heads/main/tde2e.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Vascom/tde2e/raw/refs/heads/main/tde2e-1.8.51-1.fc42.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9381359 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386835-tde2e/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09381359-tde2e/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/9381372 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386835-tde2e/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09381372-tde2e/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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License", "Boost Software License 1.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 110 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/tde2e/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: tde2e-devel. [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 8418 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. [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. [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. [-]: %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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tde2e-devel-1.8.51-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm tde2e-1.8.51-1.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/tmpox9sbyry')] checks: 32, packages: 2 tde2e.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "tde2e-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tdlib/td/archive/bb474a201baa798784d696d2d9d762a9d2807f96/tdlib-1.8.51.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9322b30c085cc8de12b51ad022ed877eea6f332deafb094c020b94292871278f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9322b30c085cc8de12b51ad022ed877eea6f332deafb094c020b94292871278f Requires -------- tde2e-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) pkgconfig(tdutils) Provides -------- tde2e-devel: cmake(tde2e) pkgconfig(tde2e) pkgconfig(tdutils) tde2e-devel tde2e-devel(x86-64) tde2e-static Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name tde2e --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, fonts, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Package approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tde2e
FEDORA-2025-0f35db2909 (tde2e-1.8.51-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-0f35db2909
FEDORA-2025-60a9d7d1c6 (tde2e-1.8.51-3.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-60a9d7d1c6
FEDORA-2025-b26951e298 (tde2e-1.8.51-4.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b26951e298
FEDORA-2025-b26951e298 (tde2e-1.8.51-4.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.