Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lihis/phosh-tour/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09389975-phosh-tour/phosh-tour.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lihis/phosh-tour/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09389975-phosh-tour/phosh-tour-0.47.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Phosh Tour is simple introduction to Phosh, like gnome-tour for GNOME. Fedora Account System Username: lihis
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9390018 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2387291-phosh-tour/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09390018-phosh-tour/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Systemd user unit service file(s) in phosh-tour Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units 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/lihis/phosh-tour/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09391346-phosh-tour/phosh-tour.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lihis/phosh-tour/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09391346-phosh-tour/phosh-tour-0.47.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2103104 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9390018 to 9391362
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9391362 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2387291-phosh-tour/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09391362-phosh-tour/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Systemd user unit service file(s) in phosh-tour Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units 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.
I'm not sure should the systemd macros be included in ℅postun as I would assume there is no benefit to reload/restart the service on a upgrade?
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in phosh-tour See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units ===== 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]: 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 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* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 72 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora- packaging/reviews/phosh-tour/2387291-phosh-tour/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 1321 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. [ ]: 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 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: phosh-tour-0.47.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm phosh-tour-0.47.0-1.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/tmpicspzkcb')] checks: 32, packages: 2 phosh-tour.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/mobi.phosh.PhoshTour-first-login.desktop phosh-tour.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phosh-tour 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: phosh-tour-debuginfo-0.47.0-1.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/tmp_1ad85aq')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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 phosh-tour.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/mobi.phosh.PhoshTour-first-login.desktop phosh-tour.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phosh-tour 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Phosh/phosh-tour/-/archive/v0.47.0/phosh-tour-v0.47.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3d82ac023b20e74fee4949ab386ddfc8cfcc2702549a25f606471d89e1aa311a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3d82ac023b20e74fee4949ab386ddfc8cfcc2702549a25f606471d89e1aa311a Requires -------- phosh-tour (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libadwaita-1.so.0()(64bit) libadwaita-1.so.0(LIBADWAITA_1_0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmobile.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- phosh-tour: application() application(mobi.phosh.PhoshTour.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(mobi.phosh.PhoshTour.metainfo.xml) phosh-tour phosh-tour(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2387291 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, Python, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=135852141 b) Please validate metainfo.xml file, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage c) Checking on systemd macros
b) Was this needed even if upstream already run `appstreamcli validate --nonet` [1]? From comment a) Koji build it can be seen the test is ran [2] as it prints "2/2 Validate appstream file OK" c) I'll add the %postun. [1] https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Phosh/phosh-tour/-/blob/v0.47.0/data/meson.build?ref_type=tags#L44 [2] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2200/135852200/build.log
(In reply to Tomi Lähteenmäki from comment #7) > b) Was this needed even if upstream already run `appstreamcli validate > --nonet` [1]? From comment a) Koji build it can be seen the test is ran [2] > as it prints "2/2 Validate appstream file OK" Missed this, thanks for pointing it out. Would add BuildRequires: libappstream-glib to be sure it is available. Would then add a fedora specific patch to change https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Phosh/phosh-tour/-/blob/main/data/meson.build?ref_type=heads#L42 from appstream_util = find_program('appstreamcli', required: false) to appstream_util = find_program('appstreamcli', required: true) to be sure it is run. Alternatively, remove it from the meson.build file and run it in the check section using appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/*.metainfo.xml > c) I'll add the %postun. Ok. > > [1] > https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Phosh/phosh-tour/-/blob/v0.47.0/data/meson. > build?ref_type=tags#L44 > [2] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2200/135852200/build.log
Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/Lihis/phosh-tour/raw/commit/ee5d7768ded5563a315a01dfe7373e80a0e67977/phosh-tour.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8008/135908008/phosh-tour-0.47.0-3.fc43.src.rpm All comments above should now be addressed.
Created attachment 2103191 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9391362 to 9395691
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9395691 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2387291-phosh-tour/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09395691-phosh-tour/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Systemd user unit service file(s) in phosh-tour Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units 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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in phosh-tour See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units ===== 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]: 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 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* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 72 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora- packaging/reviews/phosh-tour/2387291-phosh-tour/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 1321 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: phosh-tour-0.47.0-3.fc43.x86_64.rpm phosh-tour-0.47.0-3.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/tmp5pe0aawd')] checks: 32, packages: 2 phosh-tour.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: Require-appstreamcli-to-validate-appstream-file.patch phosh-tour.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/mobi.phosh.PhoshTour-first-login.desktop phosh-tour.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phosh-tour 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: phosh-tour-debuginfo-0.47.0-3.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/tmpjz0l30nh')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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 /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 phosh-tour.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/mobi.phosh.PhoshTour-first-login.desktop phosh-tour.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phosh-tour 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Phosh/phosh-tour/-/archive/v0.47.0/phosh-tour-v0.47.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3d82ac023b20e74fee4949ab386ddfc8cfcc2702549a25f606471d89e1aa311a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3d82ac023b20e74fee4949ab386ddfc8cfcc2702549a25f606471d89e1aa311a Requires -------- phosh-tour (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libadwaita-1.so.0()(64bit) libadwaita-1.so.0(LIBADWAITA_1_0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmobile.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- phosh-tour: application() application(mobi.phosh.PhoshTour.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(mobi.phosh.PhoshTour.metainfo.xml) phosh-tour phosh-tour(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/phosh-tour/2387291-phosh-tour/srpm/phosh-tour.spec 2025-08-11 21:19:12.714264816 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/phosh-tour/2387291-phosh-tour/srpm-unpacked/phosh-tour.spec 2025-08-10 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 3; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: phosh-tour Version: 0.47.0 @@ -66,3 +76,12 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sun Aug 10 2025 Tomi Lähteenmäki <lihis> - 0.47.0-3 +- Ensure appstream file test, add %%postun + +* Sat Aug 09 2025 Tomi Lähteenmäki <lihis> - 0.47.0-2 +- Add %%post and %%preun for systemd service + +* Fri Aug 08 2025 Tomi Lähteenmäki <lihis> - 0.47.0-1 +- Upstream release 0.47.0 +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2387291 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, Python, fonts, Java, R, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) To ensure the patch is applied please change %setup -q -n %{name}-v%{version_no_tilde _} to %autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-v%{version_no_tilde _} b) Approved. Please fix (a) before import. c) Review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371047 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2386164 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368537 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2385917 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/phosh-tour
FEDORA-2025-d88e78bd7f (phosh-tour-0.47.0-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d88e78bd7f
Thanks for the review! I'll take a look on these review request if I could review some of them.
FEDORA-2025-d88e78bd7f (phosh-tour-0.47.0-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-ee765324cb (phosh-tour-0.47.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ee765324cb
FEDORA-2025-ee765324cb (phosh-tour-0.47.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.